Remanded

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Karthikeyan

Kerala HC30 Jan 2008CRP/189/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam, hearing Civil Revision Petitions 189 and 271 of 2007, set aside an award of additional compensation made by the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha. The court directed that the matter be remitted for fresh consideration in light of the Apex Court decision in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha, requiring an independent assessment based on specific case facts rather than a uniform rat

What did the court decide?

The awards of additional compensation under CRP Nos. 189 and 271 of 2007 were set aside and the case was remitted to the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha, for fresh consideration and disposal base

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929

¶5

CRP.No. 189 of 2007()

¶6

--------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/01/2006 ON OPELE.542/2002 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,,ALAPPUZHA.

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT.

¶8

¶9

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

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)

¶11

RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS.

¶12

¶13

KARTHIKEYAN, SHAJI BHAVAN, ERIKAVU P.O.

¶14

LEKSHMI, OF -DO-.

¶15

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2008, ALONG WITH CRP.271/07,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

¶17

C.R.P. Nos. 189 & 271 OF 2007

¶18

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2008

¶19

ORDER

¶20

C.R.P. NO. 189/07 is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Alappuzha in OP (Electricity) 542/02 whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.61,510/- with 9% interest. C.R.P. NO. 271/07 is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Alappuzha in OP (Ele) 224/02 whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.18,375/-

¶21

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the court below has relied upon the decision of this court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B . [2000 (1) KLT 542] wherein the court has ordered to take uniform annuity of 5% for calculation of compensation. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has brought to my notice that in the light of the decision of the Apex court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] wherein the Apex court has held that each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case and for that purpose it has given the following guidelines.

¶22

“ 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

¶23

C.R.P. Nos. 189 & 271/07

¶24

¶25

relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, 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.”

¶26

So, in the light of the enunciated principles, it appears that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the court below. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for fresh consideration after allowing both sides to adduce both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in the light of the enunciated principles referred to in the decision of the Apex court. I make it clear that this case has to be independently considered and the enhancement of reduction will depend upon the independent consideration.

¶27

Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 3.3.08.

¶28

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶29

vps

¶30

C.R.P. Nos. 189 & 271/07 3

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Karthikeyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Karthikeyan

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

State of Kerala Vs Lakshmi

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs K.S.Joseph

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Dharmarajan

State Vs Mohammed

Jaison Kurian Vs Kuriakose

K.S.E.Board Vs Kambakkaran Narayanan Nair