Partly allowed

Anilkumar v. Power Grid Corpn.of India Ltd.

Kerala HC25 Jul 2008CRP/697/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed this civil revision petition challenging compensation awarded for cutting trees to lay an electric line. The Court set aside the District Judge's award, modified it based on the Apex Court's decision in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha, and remanded the matter for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

The award of the Additional District Judge is set aside. The O.P.(Ele.) 122 of 2002 is remanded to the District Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Anilkumar Vs Power Grid Corpn.of India Ltd. — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930

¶5

CRP.No. 697 of 2006()

¶6

----------------------------OP(ELE.)NO.122/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER/ PETITIONERS:

¶8

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

¶9

1. ANILKUMAR, S/O. CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI AGED 42 YEARS, KOTTARATHIL KIZHAKKETHIL AYIKKATUMOOLA MURI, CHINGOLI VILLAGE, CHEPPAD P.O.

¶10

2. SASIKUMARI, D/O. RADHAMANI AMMA -DO-. -DO-. REV.PETIONERS 1 & 2 REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SAROJINI PILLAI, 68 YEARS, D/O.KUTTY PILLAI KOTTARATHIL KIZHAKKATHIL, AYIKKATTUMOOLA MURI, CHINGOLI VILLAGE, CHEPPAD P.O.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.G.ANANTHANARAYANAN

¶12

SRI.B.RAJEEV KOYICKAL

¶13

RESPONDENTS:CR. PETITIONERS:

¶14

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

¶15

1. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REP. BY CHIEF MANAGER, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NANGIARKULANGARA P.O., HARIPAD.

¶16

2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY SECRETARY, KSEB, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) - R1

¶18

SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB - R2

¶19

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Rs/

¶21

M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶22

C.R.P. NO. 697 OF 2006

¶23

Dated this the 25^th day of July, 2008

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This petition is filed challenging the compensation awarded by Additional District Court, Mavelikkara in O.P.(Ele.) No.122 of 2002 for drawing Kayamkulam - Edamon 220 KV Electric line. Trees from the property of the petitioners were cut and a total compensation of Rs.26,091/- was awarded. Contending that the compensation award was unfair and meagre petitioners filed OP.(Ele.) 122 of 2002 under Section 16 of Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 51 of Indian Electricity Act. Respondents contended that reasonable compensation has been awarded and petitioners are not entitled to any enhanced compensation. Learned District Judge, on the evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A6, granted an enhanced compensation of Rs.15,244/- with interest from the date of the petition. Petitioners are contending that the compensation awarded by the District Judge is disproportionate and very low.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondents were heard.

¶27

CRP697/06 2

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners argued that the learned District Judge did not grant any compensation for the diminution of land value caused and no compensation was granted for the coconut saplings which would have started yielding after some years and the value of yield assessed is also low and hence the award is to be set aside. Learned counsel relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in K.S.E.B. v. Maranchi Matha (2008 (1) KLT 1038) argued that petitioner is entitled to get interest on the enhanced compensation not from the date of the petition as found by the learned District Judge but from the date of cutting of the trees.

¶29

The award passed by the District Judge shows that enhanced compensation was granted based on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kumbamma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542). That decision has been subsequently modified by the Apex Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1) . In the light of the decision of the Apex Court, award passed by the learned District Judge warrants modification. In such circumstances the revision is allowed. The award passed by

¶30

¶31

CRP697/06

¶32

Additional District Judge is set aside. O.P.(Ele.) 122 of 2002 is remanded to the District Court for fresh disposal, in accordance with law. Parties are also entitled to adduce further evidence.

¶33

M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶34

Okb/-

Anilkumar v. Power Grid Corpn.of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar v. Power Grid Corpn.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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayanan Nair Vs Usha Kumari

K.P.Anil Kumar Vs the Secretary, Kerala Khadi Grama

N.K.Radhakrishnan Vs Leelamma

Ammini Vs Aleyamma

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Sheeba Kurian

C.Sreemathy Vs the Taluk Land Board