Allowed

Annie Abraham v. K.S.E.Board

Kerala HC15 Jul 2009CRP/693/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Kerala allowed revisions against an enhanced compensation award made under the Indian Electricity Act and Telegraph Act. The Court quashed the award made relying on Kumbamma guidelines, citing a later Apex Court ruling that deprecated such parameters, and remanded for fresh assessment.

What did the court decide?

Revisions allowed; impugned award of Additional District Judge set aside; case remitted for fresh consideration.

Annie Abraham Vs K.S.E.Board — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931

¶4

CRP.No. 693 of 2008() --------------------OPELE.186/2004 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD ....................

¶5

REVISION PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER:

¶6

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

¶7

ANNIE ABRAHAM, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.ABRAHAM, MAYILVAHANAM TRANSPORT, CHEMMARIKKAT HOUSE, POTHUVAL JUNCTION, SHORNUR POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:

¶10

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

¶11

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, K.S.E.B., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), K.S.E.B., MALAPPURAM.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR. ASOK M.CHERIAN, SC, KSEB

¶14

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2009 ALONG WITH CRP NO. 326 OF 2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Kss

¶16

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶17

C.R.P Nos.693 OF 2008 AND 326 OF 2008 -------------------------------------

¶18

Dated this the 15^th day of July 2009

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

These two revisions have been filed

¶21

against the order dated 09/01/2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Palakkad in a petition filed under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act for enhanced compensation for the cutting down of trees to draw a electric line through the property of the applicant therein. The learned District Judge following, the guide lines given in 'Kumbamma v K.S.E.B'(2001) KLT 542 reevaluated the compensation payable to the applicant with reference to the materials tendered including a commission report collected in the enquiry. The claimant was awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.26,100/- with 6% interest from the date of filing of the petition.

¶22

C.R.P Nos.693/08 AND 326/08 2

¶23

Impeaching the correctness of that order the respondent has filed C.R.P 326/2008 contending that the compensation awarded by the court is excessive and unreasonable. The other revision is filed by the claimant contending that the parameters taken by the court to assess the compensation is not correct and relevant materials produced including the commission report were not properly appreciated and the enhanced compensation fixed is very much on

¶24

the lower side and reconsideration of the compensation due for the damages caused is

¶25

essential.

¶26

2. Both these revisions were heard

¶27

together. At the time of hearing it is submitted by the counsel on both sides that the decision

¶28

rendered by the full bench of this court in 'Kumbamma v K.S.E.B'(2001) KLT 542 has been considered by Apex court in 'K.S.E.B v Livisha and others' (2007(3)) KLT and it has been held that the parameters given under that decision cannot be

¶29

C.R.P Nos.693/08 AND 326/08 3

¶30

applied in all cases. The apex court in the above judgment in paragraphs (10) and (11) has laid down the matters to be looked into by the court in adjudging a claim for enhanced compensation on the ground of damages caused by cutting down trees and loss of diminution in the value of land by drawing of overhead lines through the property. In the light of the apex court decision, as referred to above, it is imperative and essential that a fresh look into the matter after setting aside the impugned order which is based on 'Kumbamma v K.S.E.B' (2001)KLT 542 is essential. In such circumstances both revisions are allowed and the case is remitted for fresh consideration setting

¶31

aside the award passed by the Additional District Judge. Parties are to be given fresh opportunity to give further evidence if so deserved.

¶32

Sd/S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

¶33

vdv

Annie Abraham v. K.S.E.Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annie Abraham v. K.S.E.Board

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

Soman Vs Thomas

C.Nagamma Vs K.v.Purushothaman

Krishna Moolya Vs Venkatramana Bhat

Vyaparavijayam Higher Purchase (P) Ltd. Vs P.D.Hariharan

P.L.Navis Vs the Canara Bank

Asha Krishnan Vs Beena