Dismissed

Karthiyayani v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Kerala HC25 Jan 2011CRP/390/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought enhanced compensation for cut trees and diminution of land value under the Indian Telegraph and Electricity Acts. The High Court held the awarded compensation for trees was on the higher side per Supreme Court principles and noted lack of evidence for land value diminution, dismissing the revision.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed as there was no ground for interference.

Karthiyayani Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932

¶5

CRP.No. 390 of 2007()

¶6

--------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2006 IN OP(EA)NO.646/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER/ PETITIONER

¶8

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

¶9

KARTHIYAYANI, AGED 62 YEARS, MANALA THEKKETHIL HOUSE, POTHAPPALLY, KUMARAPURAM P.O., KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH

¶11

RESPONDENT/ COUNTER PETITIONER

¶12

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

¶13

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, LOCAL OFFICE AT NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPPAD.

¶14

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

dmb

¶16

K.T.SANKARAN, J .

¶17

C.R.P.No.390 OF 2007

¶18

Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
5th April, 2006 in O.P(EA)No.646 of 2002 on the file
of the Court of the Additional District Judge,
Alappuzha.

¶21

2. For drawing a 220 K.V. electric line, the

¶22

respondent, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
cut and removed 6 yielding coconut trees and 5
yielding arecanut trees from the property belonging
to the petitioner. Dissatisfied with the

¶23

compensation awarded by the respondent, the
petitioner approached the Additional District Court
Under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and
Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act. The
petitioner contended that the compensation awarded
on account of the trees cut and also on account of
diminution of land value is very low.

¶24

C.R.P.No.390 OF 2007 2

¶25

3. Before the court below, PW1, the son-in-law

¶26

of the petitioner, was examined. No other

¶27

independent evidence was adduced. The court below
came to the conclusion that the compensation on
account of the value of the trees cut was granted
adopting 10% as the annual return. Following the

¶28

decision of Kumbha Amma v. K.S.E.B (2000(1) KLT

¶29

542), the court below enhanced the compensation for
the trees cut, taking the annual return at 5%. In
fact, in view of the Supreme Court judgments, the
award of compensation taking annual return at 5%
would be on the higher side. However, the court
below held that the compensation for the yielding
trees would be Rs.59,051/- and after taking the
compensation already awarded, an enhanced
compensation of Rs.22,946/- was granted in favour
of the petitioner with 9% interest from the date of
cutting of trees.

¶30

4. As regards compensation for diminution of
land value, the court below held that there is no

¶31

C.R.P.No.390 OF 2007 3

¶32

evidence in the case to come to the conclusion that

¶33

the petitioner is entitled to any compensation on

¶34

account of diminution of land value. It was

¶35

noticed by the court below that the petitioner did
not take out a commission to ascertain the nature

¶36

of the property, the location of the electricity
line and the possible injury that would be caused
to the property of the petitioner by the drawal of
the line. The claim for compensation on account of
the diminution of land value was not granted by the
court below.

¶37

5. I am of the view that the compensation

¶38

awarded by the court below for the trees cut is

¶39

really on the higher side, going by the principles

¶40

laid down by the Supreme Court. As regards the
compensation for diminution of land value, the

¶41

court below was right in holding that there was no
evidence to grant the same.

¶42

C.R.P.No.390 OF 2007 4

¶43

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the respondent has not challenged
the order passed by the court below. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, there is no ground
for interference in revision.

¶44

For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision

¶45

Petition is dismissed.

¶46

K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.

¶47

cms

Karthiyayani v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthiyayani 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.E.Board Vs Kalliyani

K.S.E.B. Vs Souja

K.P.Prabhakaran Vs Ooramkunnummal Chandran

Basil Joy Vs State of Kerala

Bettlal Paul & Another Vs P.S.Joseph & Another

Sree Kalleli Oorali Appoppan Kavu Seva Vs v.S.Vasu and Others