Dismissed

Kse Board v. Dr.T.Krishna Menon

Kerala HC11 Feb 2008CRP/1131/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a revision petition filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board challenging a District Judge's order awarding enhanced compensation for land acquired for a 220 KV line. The upheld ruling clarified that the limitation period for such claims starts from the date of intimation of the initial award, not the cutting date, and found the awarded sums for land and trees

What did the court decide?

The I.A. No. 2750 of 2004 was dismissed; the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed as lacking merits with no order as to costs.

Kse Board Vs Dr.T.Krishna Menon — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929

¶5

CRP.No. 1131 of 2004

¶6

EOP.30/1998 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT:

¶8

¶9

THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI. P.THAJUDEEN

¶11

RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT:

¶12

¶13

DR. T. KRISHNA MOHAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. LATE T. RAMANKUTTY VYDYAR, THALAPATH (H), THRIKKIDERI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DY.TAHASILDAR (LA), KSEB., MALAPPURAM.

¶15

R1 BY ADVS. M/S.T.D.ROBIN AND P.LEAN JOSE SRI.V.V.PRATHEEKSH KURUP SRI.V.DIPU R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.DILEEP

¶16

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 4/2/2008, THE COURT ON 11/02/2008, PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

I.A.NO.2750/2004 IN C.R.P.NO.1131/2004

¶18

DISMISSED

¶19

11/2/2008 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

AHZ/

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

C.R.P. NO. 1131 OF 2004

¶24

Dated this the 11^th February, 2008

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The Revision is filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board challenging the order dated 30.1.2004 in Electricity O.P.No.30 of 1998, on the file of the Court of the District Judge of Palakkad.

¶27

For drawing 220 KV electric line from Thrissur to Kozhikode, 373 trees were cut and removed from the land belonging to the first respondent. The Electricity Board fixed a compensation of Rs.1,39,610/-. However, by the proceedings dated 24.6.1996, a sum of Rs.1,37,926/only was ordered to be paid. Dissatisfied with the award, the first respondent filed Electricity O.P.No.30 of 1998, claiming an enhanced compensation of Rs.21,49,229/-.

¶28

The Board raised a contention that the Electricity Original Petition was barred by limitation. The court below held that since the petition was filed within three years from 12.9.1996, the date of intimation of the amount of compensation to the first respondent, the petition is not barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The contention of the Board was that the trees were cut on 8.10.1992 and 21.11.1992 and, therefore, the petition should have been filed within three years from

¶29

C.R.P.NO.1131 OF 2004

¶30

:: 2 ::

¶31

the date of cutting of trees. The Original Petition was filed on 12.2.1998. It is admitted that the petitioner in the Original Petition (first respondent herein) was informed of the amount of compensation only on 12.9.1996. The court below held that limitation starts from 12.9.1996. If a proper compensation is paid, it is not necessary for the owner of the land to file an Original Petition claiming enhanced compensation. He has to decide whether he should claim enhanced compensation. For that purpose, he should know what the compensation the Board proposes to pay to him. The date of cutting of trees is not relevant for computing the period of limitation. On the other hand, it is the date of intimation as to the amount of compensation that is relevant for computing the period of limitation. The court below was, therefore, right in holding that the petition was filed within time.

¶32

As regards the compensation to be paid, the court below considered the oral evidence of PW1, petitioner in the Original Petition, and PW2, the Commissioner who filed Ext.C1 report. The evidence of PW1 would indicate that the line was drawn through the middle of his property, having an extent of more than eight acres and that an extent of 89.4 cents has become useless. The land value claimed by the first respondent herein was Rs.10,000/- per cent. It was contended that the land is situated 50 metres away from the main road. It was also contended that by the drawal of the line, the land value had come down to

¶33

C.R.P.NO.1131 OF 2004

¶34

:: 3 ::

¶35

Rs.2,000/- per cent. The Commissioner found that lands measuring 35.5 x 35 metres, 54 x 35 metres and 54 x 9 metres were affected by the drawal of the line. The court below held that the first respondent is entitled to compensation on account of diminution in land value. The diminution in land value was fixed at 10% of the market value. The land value was fixed by the court below at Rs.750/- only. That means, compensation on account of diminution in land value was awarded only at a meager rate of Rs.75/- per cent and a total sum of only Rs.6,703/- was awarded as enhanced compensation on this account.

¶36

As far as compensation to be paid for the yielding and nonyielding trees, the court below relied on the Full Bench decision in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542 (F.B.)). In view of the Full Bench decision, the rate of return was taken as 5%. On going through the detailed order passed by the court below, I am of the view that the amount awarded by the court below as compensation on account of tree cutting is not on the higher side. The court below has awarded only a sum of Rs.1,46,164.94 as additional compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of cutting till the date of payment. A Division Bench of this Court in C.R.P. No.210 of 1998 and connected cases (order dated 5.4.2006) has taken the view that interest is payable from the date of cutting of trees.

¶37

C.R.P.NO.1131 OF 2004

¶38

:: 4 ::

¶39

For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the well considered order passed by the court below does not call for any interference. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed; however, no order as to costs.

¶40

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶41

ahz/

Kse Board v. Dr.T.Krishna Menon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kse Board v. Dr.T.Krishna Menon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ummer Vs Abdul Jabbar

Vadakkedath Kannan Vs Nambiathre Sivakshethram Trustee

N.v.Kannan Nair Vs Chairman

Joseph John Vs District Registrar

Lalitha Vs Padmakshi

Albert Jerone Vs v. George