The court upheld the ADM's decision allowing the upgradation of power lines while respecting the petitioner's right to compensation under the law.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges Ext.P11 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) dated 08.04.2022. 2. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.8400 of 2022, wherein by judgment dated 14.03.2022, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 17 (2) of the Indian Telegraph Act , 1885, against the drawing of the 110 KV electric line across his residential property was directed to be considered by the District Magistrate after hearing the petitioner. Pursuant to the above, Ext.P11 order was passed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his property is measuring only 6¾ cents and the upgradation of the existing line will cause serious difficulties to him, including his right to make constructions in the future. The ADM, after considering the contentions of the petitioner, found that the lines were initially drawn in the 70s after getting consent from the father of the petitioner. The dimensions of the basement and the details of the proposed line drawn were also considered in Ext.P11. It was further found that in case the drawing of a line causes injury to the petitioner, he was given the right to seek compensation. In that view of the matter, the application of the petitioner was disposed of.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, which states that the petitioner’s intention is to obstruct and delay the upgradation work of the 66 KV Alappuzha-Kuttanad line to 110 KV through the same alignment and the Board invoke their right of way owned. It is found that the 66 KV commissioned during 1940 has become insufficient to cater to the power requirements of the Alappuzha region, and therefore, to meet the demand of power in the region, the upgradation was required. It is stated that only a new tower is being constructed in place of the old one, which had an area of 3 x 3 meters with a narrow based tower of 2.5 x 2.5 meters, with an increased height from 9 meters to 20.925 meters and thus the reduction in the basement area and increasing the height of the conductor will cause less inconvenience to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the Board also relies on the judgment of this Court in Gopalakrishnan K. v. Additional District Magistrate, Kasaragod [2026 KHC OnLine 1554] to contend that the judicial review against the order passed by the ADM is limited to examining whether the decision making process is vitiated by illegality, irrationality, and mala fides and Courts must defer to expert technical opinion in matters of technical feasibility and public interest in cases where the statutory authority has exercised discretion judicially with reasons recorded.

6. Given the specific case of the Board that only an upgradation is being done and the dimensions of the new tower is less than the old one with the height of the lines also increasing, the apprehensions raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. On going through Ext.P11 order, it is seen that the same was passed after taking into consideration all the technical and factual aspects relating to the proposed upgradation.

7. No interim order was granted in this writ petition, which was filed on 10.11.2024.

I do not find any illegality warranting interference in the order of the ADM and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The dismissal of the writ petition will not prevent the petitioner from making a claim of compensation if the same is permissible under law.

Sd/-