Dismissed

Nirmala v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Kerala HC18 Nov 2009CRP/307/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the enhanced compensation awarded by the District Judge for damage caused by drawing overhead electric lines. The High Court held that since the petitioner produced no material to show the enhanced claim was justified, particularly regarding the unproved valuation certificate, the District Judge's amount was just and reasonable.

What did the court decide?

The claimant is not entitled to more than the compensation fixed by the District Judge (Rs.17,911/-) for diminution of land value and damage to trees; the revision petition is dismissed.

Nirmala Vs Power Grid Corporation of India… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

CRP.No. 307 of 2009()

¶6

--------------------OPELE.186/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA ....................

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER

¶8

¶9

NIRMALA, D/O.ROBERT, NIRMALA BHAVAN, CHINGOLI P.O.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, KAYAMKULAM TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPAD.

¶14

ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R1

¶15

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶17

C.R.P.No.307 OF 2009

¶18

Dated this the 18^th day of November 2009

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner is the claimant in O.P (Ele.)No. 186 of

¶21

2002 on the file of the Additional District Court, Mavelikara.

¶22

The above petition was filed seeking enhanced compensation for the loss and damages caused by the drawing of overhead electric lines through her property by the respondent Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Corporation. Towards the loss suffered on account of drawing of the lines, the Corporation assessed and paid compensation of Rs.13901/-. Claimant assessing the total compensation at Rs.4,03,100/- after deducting the sum paid and limiting her claim sought enhanced compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Corporation resisted the claim contending that just and reasonable compensation had been paid. In the enquiry over the claim, no oral evidence was adduced by both sides. Claimant

¶23

C.R.P.No.307 OF 2009 Page numbers

¶24

produced Exts.A1 to A5 to substantiate her claim. The learned District Judge after appreciating the materials produced reassessed the compensation and awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.17,911/- directing the Corporation to pay such sum with 6% interest per annum from the date of the petition. Compensation awarded by the court is impeached as inadequate by the claimant filing the revision seeking enhanced compensation or remission of the case for fresh disposal.

¶25

I heard the counsel on both sides. Perusing the

¶26

order passed by the learned District Judge, it is noticed that compensation fixed with respect to the cutting and removal of the trees by the Corporation had been reassessed by the court taking note that the Corporation had fixed the compensation at 10% annuity return. Following the guideline given in “Kumbamma v. K.S.E.B” (2000(1) KLT 542) compensation was reassessed fixing the annuity return at 5%. On the above basis, a sum of Rs.10,411/- was found due as enhanced compensation towards the trees cut and it was accordingly allowed. The learned counsel for the

¶27

C.R.P.No.307 OF 2009 Page numbers

¶28

claimant could not bring to my notice any circumstance as to why the reassessment of the compensation in the manner indicated above by the learned District Judge warrant interference. No material other than the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A5 was tendered by the claimant to substantiate her claim. Evidently with respect to the compensation due for the trees cut, to claim enhanced compensation no material whatsoever was placed. Still the learned District Judge following the guidelines given by this court reassessed the compensation on that ground and awarded the amount which was found due to the claimant. However, the learned counsel for the claimant espoused a grievance that the compensation fixed towards the diminution of the land value by the court below ignoring Ext.A5 valuation certificate of the Village Officer was not proper and correct. The Village Officer who issued Ext.A5 certificate was not examined as a witness in the proceeding to prove that certificate. There was nothing to show to that the valuation made in that certificate was correct and actually reflected the market value of the property of the petitioner. The learned District Judge has fixed the land

¶29

C.R.P.No.307 OF 2009 Page numbers

¶30

value of the property at Rs.5,000/- per cent and injurious affectation caused by drawing of the line at 15% over an extent of 10 cents of land. Though the order does not reflect the basis of the valuation it is seen that injurious affectation over land was determined with reference to number of trees cut and removed for the drawing of overhead line. A sum of Rs.7,500/- was awarded by the District Judge towards diminution of land value. Where claimant has not produced any material to sustain, the compensation, ie, towards diminution of land value, she is not entitled to more than what was fixed by the District Judge. In the given facts of the case, the sum assessed by the learned District Judge towards dimunition of land value with reference to the number of trees cut and removed, fixing the extent of land and also its percentage of injurious affectation by the drawing of overhead lines, has only to be treated as just and reasonable. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed.

¶31

Sd/S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY//

¶32

P.A TO JUDGE

¶33

vdv

Nirmala v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala 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

Firdouse Vs M/S.Mena Palace Private Ltd.

Baby Vs Kanakan Traders and Another

Balakrishnan Vs Ramachandran & Others

T.N.Radhakanthan Thirumulpad Vs Chandrika

Perintalmanna Rural Housing Co-Op.Soc. Vs v.Unnikrishnan

Cherukavu Land Development Vs Ahammedkutty Haji