Remanded

Power Grid Corporation of India v. Sri.Ramachandran Pillai

Kerala HC15 Nov 2007CRP/690/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the Kerala High Court allowed the petition and set aside an order enhancing compensation. The court remitted the matter to the lower court for fresh disposal based on facts, citing an apex court decision regarding land acquisition compensation for electricity lines.

What did the court decide?

Order set aside; matter remitted to lower court for fresh disposal after affording equal opportunity to both parties.

Power Grid Corporation of India Vs Sri.Ramachandran Pillai — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1929

¶4

CRP.No. 690 of 2007 ----------------------------OPELE.307/2002 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA

¶5

REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT

¶6

-------------------------------------------------------POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK

¶8

RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER -----------------------------------------

¶9

RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, S/O SANKARAN PILLAI, KURUMBOLILPADEETTATHIL HOUSE, BHARANIKAVU P.O., BHARANICKAVU, KATTANAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR

¶11

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

M.N.KRISHNAN, J

¶13

=====================

¶14

C.R.P. No.690 OF 2007

¶15

=====================

¶16

Dated this the 15^th day of November 2007

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This revision petition is preferred against the order of the I Addl.District Court, Mavelikkara in O.P.(Ele.)307 of 2002. The court by its judgment passed an award for Rs.22,116/- as enhanced compensation. A perusal of the award would reveal that the court had taken into consideration the decision of this court reported in Kumbamma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542) wherein this court directed that 5 % annuity will have to be taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn my attention to the decision of the Apex Court reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha(2007(3) KLT

¶19

1). The Apex Court was considering the dictum laid down by this court in the decision referred to above and it was held that each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:

¶20

The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small track of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion would be determinative. The value of the land would also be a relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, in a

¶21

-:2:-

¶22

given situation may lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used. So far as the compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees are concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case”.

¶23

In view of the decision of the Apex Court the matter has to be

¶24

decided afresh and additional particulars and evidence may be necessary to substantiate and decide the case.

¶25

Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below with a direction to dispose of the matter after affording equal opportunities to both parties to produce documents and adduce evidence in respect of their contentions in accordance with the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the decision reported in 2007(3) KLT 1.

¶26

Revision petition is disposed of as above.

¶27

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶28

Cdp/-

Power Grid Corporation of India v. Sri.Ramachandran Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Power Grid Corporation of India v. Sri.Ramachandran Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Komathuputhiyaveettil Balakrishnan Nair Vs Jayanthi Gopala Krishnan

Nejim Shah Vs Ansar T.H.

N.Aboobacker Haji Vs K.Mahroof

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Rajamani

K.G.Mohanan Vs Taluk Land Board

State of Kerala and Another Vs Dr.Dayanandan