JUDGMENT

Order dated 05.05.2022 of Additional District Magistrate, Ayyanthole, Thrissur allowing the application of the 4th respondent - a beneficiary has been assailed by the petitioners/objectors.

2. Husband of the petitioner No.2 was owner of 5.67 Ares (14 cents) of land in Survey No.850/1 part as per the sale deed No.266 of 1977. The said property forms the eastern portion of the 16.18 Ares (40 cents) of property belonging to Ammukutty, the mother of Padmanabhan Nair – husband of petitioner No.2. After the death of the mother, whole property devolved on her children. Out of 16.18 Ares (40 cents), 2.53 Ares (6.250 cents) was allotted to Nanikutty. Nanikutty executed release deed registered as Doc.No.4298 of 1976, in favour of Achuthan Nair. Thereafter, on 21.01.1977 a sale deed was executed by Achuthan Nair and Kunjulakshmi in favour of Padmanabhan Nair assigning all their rights in the aforementioned 5.67 Ares (14 cents) of land in Survey No.850/1 part. A pathway was earmarked through the southernmost portion of the whole property from the public road on the west of the whole property to reach 5.67 Ares (14 cents) of land whereas the balance property stood in the name of Achuthan Nair, the brother of Padmanabhan Nair.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the electric post installed in the corner of the property of the 4th respondent has been there for the last three decades, which is evident from photograph Ext.P1. 4th respondent- beneficiary submitted an application to the Assistant Secretary, Electricity Department, Thrissur Municipal Corporation – respondent No.3 for shifting of the electric posts situated in her property to the pathway, on the ground, that it was in a dangerous condition, but the respondents who were to be affected by the installation of the pole were not made parties. On acquiring the knowledge, objections were submitted on the premise that it would reduce the width of the pathway as it is having only eight feet ie., 2.44 meters. According to the petitioner, the order of the ADM ordering shifting of the pole is wholly illegal and uncalled for as it has not taken into consideration that by ordering the shifting of the pole width of the pathway ie., 8 feet has been truncated which is evident from the photograph Ext.R4(b) attached by the respondent No.4. which reflects that the pole has been put on the outside boundary ie., on a public pathway and the ingress and egress of the vehicles would seriously be affected. In fact, the request of the 4th respondent was to replace the old rested flat pole but under the garb of the same, it has been put on the pathway which is evident from the photographs Exts.P1 and P2.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 beneficiary opposed the aforementioned prayer by submitting that both are relatives and neighbors and the electric connection to the petitioner's house is also drawn from the very same electric post bearing No.KVC 16/6, which caused damage to the residents of the house and as per the advice of the engineer, the application was submitted. Installation of the pole is near to the compound wall of the respondent with minimal inconvenience to anyone. There is no hindrance caused in the pathway resulting into interruption of ingress and egress and urged this Court for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. It would be apt to re-produce the impugned order dated 5.05.2022 Ext.P3 of the ADM allowing the application of the 4th respondent:

“1/117901/2022 Proceeding of the Additional District Magistrate (Present - Reji P Joseph)

Subject: Indian Telegraph act 1885 and 2003 Indian Electricity Act-Application submitted by Asst Secretary, Electricity Department Thrissur Corporation for shifting the electric post-

order issued Ref: Petition EW3-1030/21 dated 04-01-2022 by Asst Secretary Electricity Department, Thrissur Corporation

2) 23/03/2022 Video Conference on 23-03-2022 Order