SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Online)(KER) 26451

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J
K.C. ABDUL MUJEEB – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent


Advocates:
SRI.S.M.PREM, SRI.NIJOY, SRI.S.S.HUSSAIN, SMT.K.P.SANTHI2) K.C.RUKHIYA WIFE OF SYEDALAVI HAJI3) M.K.BEERANKOYA HAJI SON OF MUHAMMAD4) AYISHABI DAUGHTER OF CHEEKUTTY5) E.P.SHAJI SON OF THE LATE NARAYANAN6) ABOOBACKER HAJISON OF THE LATE MUHAMMED7) M.P.ABDULLAKUTTY SON OF KUNHI POKER8) M.N. ABDUL HAKKIM SON OF MOIDEEN KUTTY9) VENNAKULANGARA KUTTAN SON OF CHOYIKUTTY10) K.K.ABDUREHIMAN HAJISON OF MOIDEENKUTTY11) KALIDASAN SON OF KUNJUTTY12) K. VELAYUDHAN SON OF K.SHANKARAN13) V.SUBRAMANYAN SON OF KUNHUTTY14) BABURAJAN SON OF CHOYIKUTTY15) E.P.KRISHNANKUTTY SON OF NARAYANAN E.P.16) NARAYANI WIFE OF PADMANABHAN17) CHAKKIKUTTY SON OF KANNAKUTTY18) VELAYUDHAN SON OF CHATHANKUTTY19) VELAYUDHAN NADUKKANDIPURAYI20) N.P.CHATHANKUTTY NADUKKANDIPURAYI

JUDGMENT

1.The petitioners state that they are inhabitants of a scheduled caste colony. They object to the drawal of an electric line. The learned Standing Counsel for the KSE Board has placed before me a route map of alignment as certified by the Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, KSE Board. That route map shows that a 33 KV Line is proposed to be laid from KINFRA to Ramanattukara and the issue in hand relates to a very short lap very near to KINFRA. It is also submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Board that 85%

of the work has been completed.

2.The issue is shortly this. According to the petitioners, there is a public way to the KINFRA and the line is drawn in such a way that it impairs the present user of that way. According to them, by the laying of poles aside the road, the width of the road as would be available for motorable purposes would be reduced. This is, in fact, the only issue raised. The petitioners have filed a complaint before the District Magistrate. But that by itself would not suffice because, the right of the petitioners is not on the basis of any obstruction that they make in relation to their private property. The width of the road through a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top