Dismissed

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Smt.Kausalya

Kerala HC19 Nov 2009CRP/861/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision challenged an order enhancing compensation for trees cut for electric lines. The High Court held the District Judge's reassessment was proper, finding the enhanced amount and land diminution reasonable, thus allowing the revision to fail.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; compensation order enhanced by the District Judge allowed without interference.

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

CRP.No. 861 of 2005 --------------------OPELE.453/2002 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. ....................

¶6

REVN. PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶7

¶8

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶9

BY ADV. MR.M.A.SHAFIK M.ABDUL KHADIR

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: -------------------------

¶11

SMT. KAUSALYA, PUTHUKATTIL VEEDU, PALLICKAL P.O., THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶12

ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD FOR R1

¶13

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶15

C.R.P.No.861 of 2005

¶16

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2009

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Revision is directed against the order dated 20.1.2005 in O.P.No.453 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha. Respondent in the above O.P., namely, Power Grid Corporation of India, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, is the revision petitioner. The above O.P. was filed by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act seeking enhanced compensation for the trees cut and removed for the drawing of overhead lines through her property having an extent of 30 cents comprised in Thekkekkara Village in Kayamkulam for the drawing of Kayamkulam-Edamon 220KV High Tension Electric Line by the Corporation. Towards compensation for the trees cut and removed from the property of the claimant the Corporation awarded a sum of Rs.11,669/-. Challenging the compensation so provided as inadequate and unreasonable, claimant filed the

¶19

C.R.P.No.861 of 2005

¶20

¶21

above O.P seeking enhanced compensation. The Corporation resisted the application contending just and reasonable compensation had been paid on a proper valuation and assessment of the relevant matters involved in the cutting and removal of the trees from the property for drawing of the line. In the enquiry on the petition claimant was examined as PW1 and A1 to A7 were exhibited. No evidence was adduced by the Corporation. Learned District Judge after appreciating the materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides reassessed the compensation payable and awarded a sum of Rs.12,204/- as enhanced compensation directing the Corporation to pay such sum with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in this revision.

¶22

I heard the counsel on both sides.

¶23

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/Corporation

¶24

assailed the order of the learned District Judge contending that

¶25

relevant principles applicable for determination of the compensation in respect of drawing of electric lines on cutting

¶26

C.R.P.No.861 of 2005

¶27

¶28

and removal of trees have not been followed and further the court below in reassessment of the compensation has relied on the decision rendered in Kumba Amma v. KSEB (2000(1)KLT 542). Since the principles laid down thereunder stand disapproved by the Apex Court in KSEB v. Livisha (2007(3) KHC 53) a reconsideration of the questions involved by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter to the court below, according to the counsel, is essential to advance the ends of justice.

¶29

Perusing the impugned order, I find that seven coconut trees from the property of the petitioner had been cut and removed for the drawing of the electric lines, out of which six were yielding and one nonyielding. The Corporation had assessed the compensation adopting 10% annuity return which have been found unsuitable by this Court in Kumba Amma 's case taking a view that 5% annuity return has to be followed in assessment and determination of compensation for cutting and removing of trees. Learned District Judge following the principles laid down in Kumba Amma 's case reassessed the compensation

¶30

C.R.P.No.861 of 2005

¶31

¶32

payable towards cutting and removal of trees and found that the claimant is entitled to Rs.10,104.19/- fixing it at 5% annuity return. The Apex Court in Livisha 's case has expressed the view that assessment of compensation has to be made with reference to the situs of the land, its location and other factors necessary to be taken into consideration. Having regard to the fact that enhanced compensation awarded is meagre and with reference to the trees cut and removed which included 6 yielding coconut trees, I find no interference with the reassessment of compensation made by the District Judge is called for in the present case. So far as the diminution of land value which was also claimed by the claimant, the court below repelling the case of the plaintiff that the property has centage value of Rs.35,000/fixed it at Rs.1,000/- and on the basis it proceeded to analyse to what extent the diminution of land value has been suffered by the drawing of line and the extent of land so affected. A sum of Rs.2,100/- had been assessed by the court forming a view that 7 cents of land were affected to the extent of 20%. Needless to point out towards diminution of land value and also injurious

¶33

C.R.P.No.861 of 2005

¶34

¶35

affectation suffered by the claimant for the drawing of the electric lines is also very meagre. That being so, I find exercise of revisional jurisdiction is uncalled for in the present case. Determination of the enhanced compensation by the learned District Judge is proper and correct, and no interference is warranted.

¶36

There is no merit in the revision, and it is closed.

¶37

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶38

bkn/-

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Smt.Kausalya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Smt.Kausalya

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

T.N.Radhakanthan Thirumulpad Vs Chandrika

Nirmala Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

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

Salu Varghese Vs P.P.Prabhakaran

M/S.Ece Industries Limited Vs G.Soman

Jayasankar Vs Middle State Kuries and Loans