IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1941 WP(C).No.7737 of 2019 PETITIONER/S:

PRABHAKARAN AGED 48 YEARS S/O SANKARAN, VALLIKADU VALAPPIL, EZHAVATHURUTHI AMSOM, ERIKKAMANNA DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.

SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SMT.SURUMI SHAKEEL SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENT/S:

1 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505.

2 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 583.

3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB LINE MAINTANANCE SUB DIVISION, MUNDUPARAMBU (P.O), MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 509.

4 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER KSEB TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 509.

5 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.

VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.G.GANESH KUMAR, SC, SRI.N.B.SUNILNATH,GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner alleges that four cents of his property was taken over by the Kerala State Electricity Board ('KSEB' for short) in the year 1990-1991, for the purpose of installing a 110 KV electric tower; but concedes that the compensation for the trees cut had been paid to him at that time, then alleging that the compensation for acquisition of the land is yet to be paid. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the KSEB be directed to pay him the compensation for the land allegedly taken possession of by them.

2. In answer to the submissions of the petitioner as afore, the learned standing counsel for the KSEB, Sri.Arun Kumar, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief at this time because; for one, he concedes that he has received the compensation for the trees cut; and for the second, he has already been paid the eligible compensation by the KSEB for their right of user over the property in question. He says that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation for the land because there was no such acquisition as alleged by him and that the said land still continues in the name of the petitioner, the KSEB only having the right of way over the same in terms of the applicable Statutes and Regulations. He, then adds that this writ petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner has made his claim after nearly 28 years since the Tower was installed, which was done as early as in the year 1990-1991, as has been admitted by the petitioner. 3. When I consider the submissions made as afore by the parties, it is obvious that this writ petition cannot be ordered by this Court at this distance of time, since the petitioner is making a claim, which is severely disputed by the KSEB and that too after nearly 29 years. This writ petition thus cannot be found to be maintainable, since it is now well settled without any requirement for reinstatement, that when this Court acts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is inhibited from entering into areas of factual disputes because the parties will have to establish the same in terms of law before other alternative appropriate Forums. In such view of the matter and leaving open all such liberty to the petitioner, subject to the laws and prescription of limitation, I close this writ petition without any further orders.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN rp JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 8.1.2016.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH PLAN SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF TOWER, LIE OF THE PROPERTY.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED

18.10.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 8.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.7.2018 IN WPC NO.4200 OF 2018.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE