Remanded

Tomy v. the Chairman, Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC8 Feb 2013CRP/39/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed three civil revisions challenging orders awarding compensation for a 33 K.V. line. The Court found the District Judge failed to follow accepted assessment methods and ignored the claim for diminished land value, setting aside the impugned orders for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders in O.P.(Electricity) Nos. 33, 48 and 84 of 2006 are set aside. The petitions are remitted to the Additional District Judge for fresh decision after giving parties an opportunity to

Tomy Vs the Chairman, Kerala State Electricity Board — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/19TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 39 of 2013 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP (ELECTRICITY) NO.84/2006 OF DISTRICT COURT, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER :

¶8

TOMY,

¶9

S/O. K.C. JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS, KADUPPIL HOUSE PULPALLY AMSOM AND DESOM, SULTHANBATHERI TALUK WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU

¶11

RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS :

¶12

1. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶13

2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, T.C. SUB DIVISION KANIYAMBETTA, VYTHIRI TALUK WAYANAD DISTRICT-673121.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI. SATHYANATHA MENON, SC

¶15

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-02-2013, ALONG WITH CRP. NO. 42/2013 & CRP NO. 49/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ===================== Civil Revision Petition Nos. 39, 42 and 49 of 2013

¶18

============================== Dated this the 8^th day of January, 2013

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Respondents appear through counsel.

¶21

These civil revisions arise from orders passed by the

¶22

learned District Judge, Wayanad in O.P. (Electricity) Nos. 84 of 2006, 48 of 2006 and 33 of 2006, respectively.

¶23

33 K.V. Line was drawn through the property claimed by petitioners. For the said purpose, various improvements were cut and removed from their property. In O.P. (Electricity) No. 84 of 2006 respondent awarded Rs.15,526/-. In O.P. (Electricity No). 48 of 2006 the amount awarded by the respondent is Rs. 17,863/-. In O.P. (Electricity) No. 33 of 2006 the amount awarded by the respondent is Rs.7,950/-. Claiming enhanced compensation for value of improvements and compensation for diminished land value due to the drawal of high tension line, petitioners moved learned District Judge as aforesaid. Petitioners adduced some evidence in support of their contentions. Learned District Judge, after referring to the evidence awarded enhanced compensation to the tune of 60% of

¶24

C.R.P. Nos. 39, 42 and 49 of 2013

¶25

-: 2 :-

¶26

the amount already awarded by the respondents with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. No compensation was awarded for diminished land value (if any to which petitioners are entitled). Hence challenge to the orders passed by learned District Judge.

¶27

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioners that evidence let in by petitioners was not properly considered, not to say that it was either not accepted or rejected for specific reason. Instead, after simply referring to the evidence learned District Judge has simply awarded 60% of the amount already awarded by the respondents as enhanced compensation. It is not clear in what way learned District Judge has arrived at 60% of the compensation already awarded.

¶28

A further contention is that no compensation was awarded for diminished land value though the drawal of line has injuriously affected the land. Learned counsel contends that on account of drawal of line petitioners are not able to put up constructions or plant permanent crops in the land affected. Thereby the land value has diminished. Petitioners are entitled to get compensation for that as well but not even considered by the learned District Judge.

¶29

C.R.P. Nos. 39, 42 and 49 of 2013

¶30

-: 3 :-

¶31

Learned counsel for respondent contends that petitioners have not produced relevant documents of title. No reliable evidence was adduced in support of their claim for enhanced compensation for value of improvements. So far as claim for compensation for diminished land value is concerned, it is contended that petitioners are not entitled to any such amount. According to the learned counsel, the land continues to be in the ownership and possession of petitioners which could be made use of for cultivation of seasonal crops.

¶32

I have gone through the orders passed by learned District Judge and find that accepted methods for assessment of compensation for value of improvements was not followed. Instead, after referring to the evidence learned District Judge has concluded that petitioners could be given 60% of compensation already awarded by the respondent as additional compensation. In what way 60% was arrived at is not clear.

¶33

In the light of various authorities on the point, I am unable to accept and sustain that assessment. Also learned District Judge has not gone into the question whether petitioners are entitled to get compensation for diminished land value, if

¶34

C.R.P. Nos. 39, 42 and 49 of 2013 -: 4 :-

¶35

any. Learned District Judge ought to have considered whether drawal of line has injuriously affected the land thereby entitling petitioners to get compensation for that.

¶36

In the light of the above, orders passed by the learned District Judge in these civil revisions are liable to be set aside. I make it clear that both sides will get opportunity to adduce further evidence, if any.

¶37

Resultantly, these civil revisions are allowed as under:-

¶38

1. Impugned orders in O.P.(Electricity) Nos. 33 of 2006, 48 of 2006 and 84 of 2006 of the District Court, Wayanad are set aside.

¶39

1. Those original petitions are remitted to the learned Additional District Judge, Wayanad for fresh decision after giving both sides opportunity to adduce further evidence, if any.

¶40

1. Parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Wayanad on 01.03.2013.

¶41

Sd/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶42

smv

¶43

//True copy//

¶44

P.A. To Judge

Tomy v. the Chairman, Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tomy v. the Chairman, Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sankaran Nair Vs N.Chandrasekharan Nair

Vaheedabhanu Vs v.Ganesh

Raveendran Vs Swamy Bhoomananda Theertha

5EJANI and Others Vs Selvister and Another

State of Kerala Vs P.M.Raman Namboothiripad

Chodath Shaikoya Vs the Land Acquisition Collector