IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8251 of 2010(F)
1. A.R.S.VADHYAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
5. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :02/06/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P. (C) No. 8251of 20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 02nd of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to assess
compensation payable to the petitioner under Section 10 (d) of Indian
Telegraph Act, consequent to the installation of tower and drawal of
110 KV electric lines through the petitioner’s property comprised in
survey Nos. 547/1, 547/2 and 547/4 of Ollur village and to disburse the
compensation as expeditiously as possible
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, despite
satisfying all the requirements by furnishing the relevant documents,
the respondents have not chosen to disburse the compensation to the
petitioner so far, stating some or other untenable reason, which made
the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition.
3. The respondents are stated as insisting for, production of ‘up
to date’ possession certificate. The possession was very much there,
when the electric lines were drawn and thereafter, the petitioner
constructed several ‘Villas’ in the property and the properties and
buildings have been sold to the prospective customers. This being the
position, as on date, possession certificate is not liable or likely to be
procured by the petitioner, submits the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
W.P. (C) No. 8251 of 2010
: 2 :
4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent
Board submits, with reference to the statement filed before this Court,
that the delay in disbursing the compensation was only due to the
failure of the part of the petitioner. It is stated that Ext.P7 possession
certificate was issued for producing before the ‘Catholic Syrian Bank’
and hence not acceptable to the respondents.
5. It is stated in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that the
documents required to have computed and disbursed compensation
are : i. ‘Sketch’ of the land from the revenue authority ii. ‘Possession
certificate’ of the land at the time “tower erection (which is contradictory
to stand now taken insisting for ‘up to date’ possession certificate). iii.
‘Certified copy of Deed’ of that time and iv. ‘Land value certificate’ in the
area from revenue authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner
brought it to the notice of this Court that the possession certificate as on
the date of erection has already furnished to the respondents as borne
by Ext. P1. This being the position, why differences of opinion is
expressed with reference to Ext.P7 certificate is not known.
6. In any view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that, the originals as mentioned in paragraph 6 of the
statement will be furnished by the petitioner forthwith. The learned
standing counsel for the respondents submits that, the proceedings will
W.P. (C) No. 8251 of 2010
: 3 :
be finalized and compensation will be disbursed within the shortest
possible time. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is directed to
furnish the remaining documents if any, within one month from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on receipt of such documents,
the compensation payable to the petitioner shall be be worked out and
caused to be disbursed to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible,
at any rate, within a period of two months thereafter.
The Writ Petition is disposed of
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd