Partly allowed

Kerala State Electiricity Board v. a.Kamarudeen

Kerala HC14 Feb 2013CRP/471/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside orders of Additional District Judge regarding compensation for land acquisition for power lines. Court found lack of evidence for land value and extent affected, remitting matters for fresh recording of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside and cases remitted to Additional District Judge for fresh decision with opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence.

Kerala State Electiricity Board Vs a.Kamarudeen — 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

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/25TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 471 of 2012 (B)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP(ELC.)16/2007 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA. DATED 14-03-2012

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

¶9

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM

¶10

PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶11

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PUNNAPRA

¶12

ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶15

1. A.KAMARUDEEN NISHALAYAM, PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PIN-688 524.

¶16

2. USHA BEEGAM, NISHALAYAM, PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PIN-688 524.

¶17

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2013, ALONG WITH C.R.P. No.473 of 2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. Nos.471 & 473 of 2012

¶20

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

¶21

Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2013

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

In C.R.P. No.471 of 2012 respondents though served on the application to condone the delay, have remained absent. In view of the decision I proposed to take, notice to them in civil revision petition is dispensed with.

¶24

Respondent in C.R.P. No.473 of 2012 appears through counsel.

¶25

These civil revisions arise from the separate orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P. (Electricity) Nos.16 and 36 of 2007, respectively.

¶26

Petitioners, it is not disputed cut and removed valuable improvements from the property of respondents for drawal of 110 KV line. Dissatisfied with compensation awarded by petitioners, respondents moved learned Additional District Jude in the respective applications

¶27

C.R.P. Nos.471 & 473 of 2012

¶28

-2-

¶29

claiming additional compensation for value of improvements and compensation for diminished land value on account of drawal of high tension line. Learned Additional District Judge while not enhancing compensation for value of improvements for the reason that no evidence was adduced, awarded compensation for diminished land value at the rate of 40% of land value fixed at Rs.45,000/-.

¶30

It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that it is without any evidence that learned Additional District Judge has fixed land value at Rs.45,000/and adopted 40% as compensation payable. It is also argued that there has no acceptable evidence regarding the extent of land if any affected by drawal of the line.

¶31

Learned counsel for respondent in C.R.P. No.473 of 2012 submits that sufficient opportunity was not given to the respondent to adduce evidence regarding additional compensation claimed for value of improvements, land value and extent of land affected by the drawal of the line.

¶32

In the impugned orders, learned Additional

¶33

C.R.P. Nos.471 & 473 of 2012

¶34

-3-

¶35

District Judge has observed that no evidence was adduced as regards claim for enhanced compensation for value of improvements and hence additional compensation on that ground cannot be allowed. But it is seen that even the annuity factor was not considered.

¶36

As regards compensation payable for diminished land value, it is seen that learned Additional District Judge has fixed land value at Rs.45,000/- and Rs.40,000/respectively, and taking 40% as the basis, awarded compensation. It does not appear that there was sufficient material before learned Additional District Judge to fix land value.

¶37

Learned counsel for respondent in C.R.P. No.473 of 2012 requested that respondent may be given opportunity to adduce evidence on all the claims she has made in the original petition.

¶38

In the way learned Additional District Judge has dealt with claims in the two cases I am inclined to set aside the respective orders in toto and remit the cases, with

¶39

C.R.P. Nos.471 & 473 of 2012

¶40

-4-

¶41

opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence regarding the respective contentions.

¶42

Resultantly, these C.R.Ps are allowed as under:

¶43

C.R.P. No.471 of 2012 :

¶44

(1) Order dated 14.03.2012 in O.P. (Electricity) No.16 of 2007 of the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha is set aside.

¶45

(2) O.P. (Electricity) No.16 of 2007 is remitted to

¶46

the learned Additional District Judge for fresh decision.

¶47

C.R.P. No.473 of 2012 :

¶48

(1) Order dated 13.04.2013 in O.P. (Electricity) No.36 of 2007 of the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha is set aside.

¶49

(2) O.P. (Electricity) No.36 of 2007 is remitted to the learned Additional District Judge for fresh decision.

¶50

Parties in C.R.P. No.471 of 2012 shall appear

¶51

C.R.P. Nos.471 & 473 of 2012

¶52

-5-

¶53

before learned Additional District Judge on 15.03.2013.

¶54

In case respondents in C.R.P. No.471 of 2012 do not appear before learned Additional District Judge on that day, notice shall be issued to them for their appearance.

¶55

Parties in both cases will get opportunity to adduce evidence in support of all their respective claims and counter claims.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE

¶58

The date “13.04.2013” occurring in clause (1) under the title C.R.P 473/2012 at page 4 of the common order dated 14/02/2013 in C.R.P Nos.471 & 473/2012 is corrected as “13.04.2012” and the words “Parties in C.R.P 471 of 2012 shall appear before learned Additional District Judge on 15/03/2013” occurring after clause (2) (at page 4 & 5) are corrected and substituted as “Parties in C.R.P Nos.471 & 473 of 2012 shall appear before the learned Additional District Judge on 15/03/2013” as per order dated 04/03/2013 in C.R.P Nos.471 & 473 of 2012.

¶59

Sd/Registrar (Judicial)

¶60

shg/

¶61

C.R.P. Nos.471 & 473 of 2012

¶62

-6-

¶63

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶64

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.M.A. No.650 of 2012 in C.R.P. No.471 of 2012 & C.M.A. No.652 of 2012 in C.R.P. No.473 of 2012

¶65

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2013

¶66

O R D E R

¶67

In C.M.A. No.650 of 2012 respondents are served but there is no response.

¶68

In C.M.A. No.652 of 2012 respondent appears through counsel.

¶69

Heard both sides on the request to condone the delay.

¶70

Having regard to the circumstances stated in the affidavits, I am satisfied that the delay is explained. Hence the applications are allowed and the delay is condoned.

¶71

THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE

¶72

shg/

Kerala State Electiricity Board v. a.Kamarudeen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Electiricity Board v. a.Kamarudeen

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

Bernard Manuel @ Roy Vs Shine Augustine

Sarojinivalli Vs Ramachandra Shenoy

Radha Vs Sowmini

Davis Vs Manager, Indian Bank, Kodungallur Branch

Subhadra Vs Narayanan

Kamalakshi & Another Vs State of Kerala and Others