Dismissed

K.S.E.B Rep. by Its Secretary v. Sri.T.S.Gopinathan

Kerala HC4 Apr 2008CRP/789/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an award granting compensation for land damage. The High Court rejected arguments regarding uniform annuity factors, finding no serious infirmity in the lower court's award of reasonable compensation for cut trees and land diminution.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no change to the compensatory award of Rs.15,877/-.

K.S.E.B Rep. by Its Secretary Vs Sri.T.S.Gopinathan — Kerala HC (2008) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2006 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1928

¶5

CRP.No. 789 of 2006(B) ----------------------------OPELE.350/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM

¶6

REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB

¶10

RESPONDENT: PETITIONER

¶11

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

¶12

SRI.T.S.GOPINATHAN, THATHAMANGALAM, H.NO.VIII/14, KUMBALANGHI, KOCHI-7.

¶13

BY S.C. SRI. C.K. KARUNAKARAN.

¶14

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 789 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2008.

¶16

This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Ernakulam in awarding a total compensation of Rs.15,877/-. It is true that the Court below has relied upon the decision of this Court reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542) and applied the annuity factor at 5% and awarded an additional compensation of Rs.8,377/-. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1 ) the Court cannot apply a uniform annuity factor but it must be only on the facts and circumstances of that case.

¶17

It is seen from the award that there are 12 trees cut down from the property and the Court below has taken note of that factor and had arrived at a decision. It is also recorded by the Court below that in the revised valuation statement there was only a formal objection and not a

¶18

CRP NO. 789 of 2006

¶19

-:2:-

¶20

serious objection. Similarly for the drawl of line an additional amount of Rs.7,500/- is granted for the diminution in land value. The Court below did not consider the contention of the claimant but awarded a reasonable amount on that ground also. Therefore I do not find that the award suffers from any serious infirmity. Therefore the C.R.P. is dismissed.

¶21

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶22

ul/-

K.S.E.B Rep. by Its Secretary v. Sri.T.S.Gopinathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.E.B Rep. by Its Secretary v. Sri.T.S.Gopinathan

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

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Sri.Choyikandi Kelappan

Suresh P.@ Sathyamangalam Suresh Vs Suresh Kumar G.S.@ Kollayil Suresh

Smitha Vs K.R.Babu

D.Ashokan Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

P.S.Rajagopalan Vs Thrissiva Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd.

Lakshmi Vs Prakash