Point of Law: It is not a mandatory requirement that every co-owner of a property has to be heard before taking a decision invoking powers conferred under Section 16(1) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P2 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Kottayam dated 09.05.2013 invoking the powers under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and permitted the Kerala State Electricity Board i.e., the first respondent to draw electric lines through the property of the petitioner and other co-owners situated in Re-Survey No. 314/7 of Perumbaikkad village, Kottayam District. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the co-owner of 76 ares of property comprised in the aforesaid Resurvey number, being a legal heir of her father, late K.M. Joseph. It is submitted that respondents 5 to 8 unauthorisedly constructed 4 sheds in the property claiming that their grandfather was a kudikidappukaran in the property. Petitioner along with other legal heirs except one, moved the Subordinate Judges Court, Kottayam, filing O.S.No. 62/2012 to evict respondents 5 to 8 as well as for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from entering into the said property. It is further submitted that respondents 5 to 8 with the connivance of the Electricity Board and its officials started preparation to electrify the four sheds, after drawing electric lines through the petitioner's property. According to the petitioner, the petitioner raised an oral objection against the drawing of electric lines through the property. It is further submitted that since objection was raised by the co-owners of the property, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Kottayam has approached the Additional District Magistrate invoking the powers conferred under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and without hearing the petitioner, Ext.P2 order was passed, though other co-owners were heard. Therefore, the paramount contention advanced by the petitioner is that, though the other co-owners were heard, petitioner being a co-owner was entitled to be heard, and having not done so the order is bad being arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of Ext.P2, this writ petition is filed.

2. A statement is filed for and on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 refuting the allegations, claims and demands raised in the writ petition. Among other contentions, it is stated that based on the objections filed by One Kuttiamma Georgekutty and her sister, Smt. Chinnamma Thomas (siblings of the petitioner) and the direction of this Court in W.P.(C.) No.6070/2013, the matter was considered by the Additional District Magistrate and has passed Ext.P2 order. It is further pointed out that the pros and cons of the matter with respect to the drawing of the line through the co-ownership property of the petitioner and others was considered in extenso and thereafter, only Ext.P2 order was passed.

3. I have heard Sri. P.P. Thajudeen, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Riji Rajendran, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board, Sri.M.P. Madhavankutty, learned counsel for respondents 5 to 7 and Sri. Joby Joseph, Senior Government Pleader for the fourth respondent and perused the pleadings and material on record.

4. The sole question to be considered is whether any interference is required to Ext.P2 order. As I have pointed out above, the prime contention advanced by the petitioner is that the petitioner being a co-owner of the property, was entitled to be heard as of right. It is well known and well settled in law that a co-owner of a property is an owner of every inch of the property along with others. It is clear from Ext.P2 order that three of the siblings of the petitioner were parties in the proceedings before the Additional District Magistrate. It was after hearing and affording participation to the other co-owners Ext.P2 order was passed. Therefore, it can be seen that even though the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings, the intere