Remanded

Koumary Sankari v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Kerala HC24 Jun 2008CRP/388/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed remand of revision petitions related to land acquisition for a power line, allowing petitioners to prove diminished land value despite prior refusal, while noting compensation awards must consider the Supreme Court's decision in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha.

What did the court decide?

District Courts' awards set aside; District Judge directed to dispose petitions after affording opportunity to both sides to prove cases, considering K.S.E.B. v. Livisha.

Koumary Sankari Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. — Kerala HC (2008) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 388 of 2007() --------------------OPEA.567/2002 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------

¶3

KOUMARY SANKARI, AGED 76, D/O SANKARI, PUTHENKADATHIL HOUSE, NANGARKULANGARA MURI, CHEPPAD- VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH

¶4

RESPONDENT: COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶5

-----------------------------------------------------------

¶6

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

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI - R1

¶8

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2008 ALONG WITH C.R.P.NO.389 OF 2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶9

Kss

¶10

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶11

C.R.P.Nos. 388, 389, 410, 430 & 431 of 2007

¶12

Dated this the 24^th June, 2008.

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Claimants-petitioners in O.P.(EA) Nos.567/2002, O.P. (ELE) No.114/2003, O.P.(E.A.) No.432/2002, O.P.(ELE) No.103/2003 & O.P.(EA) No.96/2002, on the files of Additional District Court, Alappuzha and Patanamthitta, are respectively the petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.388, 389, 410, 430 and 431 of 2007. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded for the damages sustained on account of the drawing of Kayamkulam-Edamon 220 KV line, respective owners filed petitions before the concerned District Court claiming enhanced compensation. Though enhanced compensation was claimed for diminution of land value, finding that petitioners did not adduce any evidence to establish the extent of diminished land value, learned District Judge did not award any compensation on that head. Enhanced compensation was granted only for the trees cut based on the decision of this Court reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542). Dissatisfied with the non-granting of the award for the diminished land value, petitioners have filed these revision petitions.

¶15

¶16

CRP.388/2007 etc.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondent, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., were heard.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relying on the decision of this Court, in C.R.P.No.396 of 2007, submitted that facts of that revision are identical and as in this case, no commission was taken out or other satisfactory evidence was adduced to prove the extent of the diminished land value and this Court granted an opportunity to the petitioner therein to prove the injurious effect caused by the drawing of the line, and remanded the case back to the District Court, and in such circumstances, petitioners may also be granted the opportunity to prove their case.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that if the petitions are to be remanded to the concerned District courts, as compensation was fixed for the value of the trees cut based on Kumba Amma's case, which was subsequently modified

¶20

by the Apex Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1), compensation so awarded also warrants modification.

¶21

CRP.388/2007 etc.

¶22

¶23

In view of the opportunity granted by this Court to an identical petitioner in C.R.P.No.396/2007, petitioners are also entitled to get the same opportunity. Therefore, the awards passed by the District Courts, in O.P.(EA) Nos.567/2002, O.P.(ELE) No.114/2003, O.P.(E.A.) No.432/2002, O.P.(ELE) No.103/2003 & O.P.(EA) No.96/2002, are set aside. The District Judge is directed to dispose the petitions, after affording opportunity to both sides to prove their respective cases. District Judge shall also to consider the decision of the Apex Court, in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1), while awarding the enhanced compensation.

¶24

Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge

¶25

on 22.7.2008.

¶26

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶27

nj.

Koumary Sankari v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koumary Sankari v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

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

Xavier and Others Vs Varkey

Ajayakumar Vs Mammykutty

Sri.Sayed Mohammed Vs C.a.Joseph

K.T.Thomas Vs Anna @ Akkamma John

Mohanachandran Nair Vs Prince v.Abraham

Valayudhan Vs Kochy