High Court remitted matter below for fresh disposal after finding need for additional evidence. Court distinguish F.B 5% return from Livisha FCA requirement of case-specific assessment.
Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to court below for fresh disposal after affording opportunity to produce evidence; parties directed to appear.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1929
CRP.No. 858 of 2006() --------------------OPEA.740/2002 of ADDL.DIST. COURT,ALAPPUZHA. ....................
REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE,NANGIARKULAGARA, KAYAMKULAM,REP. BY ITS ,MANAGER.
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI
RESPONDENT: PETITIONER
RAJAMANI, D/O.PRABHAVATHY,PANICKATHY,KOODIKKAKKOM, CHINGOLI VILLAGE & NOW RESIDING AT RAJAMANGALATHU, MAHADEVIKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.T.B.RAMANI
SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.T.R.RAJESH SRI.M.R.ANISON
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
M.N.Krishnan, J.
======================== C.R.P.No.858 of 2006
========================
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2007.
ORDER
This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Additional district Judge, Alappuzha in O.P.(EA) No.740 of 2002. By the said order the court below has passed an order enhancing the compensation by 2,22,004/- with 9% interest. A perusal of paragraph 8 of the award will reveal that the court relied upon the decision of a Full Bench of this Court reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. - 2000(1) K.L.T. 542 wherein this Court held that the annual return is to be adopted at 5%. In the decision reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha - 2007(3) K.L.T.1 the Apex Court held that each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of that case. The Apex Court also held thus:
"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,
CRP 858/06
-: 2 :-
in a 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."
Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as accordingly.
M.N.Krishnan, Judge.
ess 16/11
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court's enhanced compensation order required remand for fresh evidence under K.S.E.B. v. Livisha principles
Whether additional particulars and evidence are needed regarding land situs and tree compensation in electricity line cases
Whether the 5% annual return adjustment from Full Bench precedent should displace case-specific fact assessment
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B.Explained¶21
Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. - 2000(1) K.L.T. 542
K.S.E.B. v. LivishaExplained¶21
K.S.E.B. v. Livisha - 2007(3) K.L.T.1
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
Rajamani
M.N.Krishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
