Partly allowed

K.S.E.Board v. George

Kerala HC1 Feb 2013CRP/537/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Additional District Court's order awarding compensation for land affected by a high tension power line. The High Court found a grave error in failing to assess the percentage of diminution in property value and not deposing a commissioner to determine market value, remitting the matter for fresh disposal. Disposition: Partly allowed; Petition allowed, impugned order se

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the court below for fresh disposal within a period of three months.

K.S.E.Board Vs George — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/12TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 537 of 2008 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN O.P(ELE).121/1999 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM DATED 31-12-2007

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S):

¶8

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STTE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

GEORGE, S/O JOHN, KAKKNAT HOUSE, THALAKKOTT POST, NERIYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.V.J.JOSEPH SMT.S.MEERA SRI.T.K.SHOBY

¶13

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶16

C.R.P.No.537 of 2008

¶17

.................................................................... Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2013

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The Kerala State Electricity Board is in revision before this

¶20

Court.

¶21

For the purpose of drawing a 220 KV high tension line across the property of the respondent, certain trees were cut and removed from the said property. The authorized officers of the Board, after preparing a valuation statement,

¶22

awarded a sum of Rs.2,02,408/- as compensation.

¶23

Challenging the adequacy of the compensation, the

¶24

respondent carried the matter before the District Court, Ernakulam. The same was resisted by the Board contending that the amount awarded was full, fair, just and adequate and the procedure and method adopted for arriving at the damages is strictly in accordance with the accepted rules and

¶25

¶26

C.R.P.No.537 of 2008

¶27

procedures. The Additional District Court (Adhoc-II), who heard the petition, awarded enhanced compensation, which is under challenge in this revision petition.

¶28

Arguments have been heard and the impugned order as well as the connected records were perused.

¶29

The main grievance voiced against the enhancement

¶30

awarded by the court below is that the court below, relying on Exhibit A5 which is the certified copy of a sale deed pertaining to another land in the village, found that the market value of the property is Rs.5,000/- per cent and awarded a sum of Rs.1,95,100/- for an extent of 39.02 cents of land affected by the drawing of the electric line. There cannot be any dispute regarding the area affected by the drawing of line because it was arrived at on the basis of Exhibit R1A prepared by the authorized officer of the revision petitioner.

¶31

However, the learned District Judge committed a

¶32

¶33

C.R.P.No.537 of 2008

¶34

grave error in not arriving at the percentage of diminution. No commissioner was deputed for assessing the same. The learned District Judge awarded compensation @ Rs.5,000/- for the entire extent of 39.02 cents affected by the drawing of the line. There was no effort to find out the market vale of the property. This compels this Court to interfere with the impugned order.

¶35

The learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that the respondent has received the entire amount of compensation. In the light of the infirmity pointed out earlier, the impugned order shall not be allowed. In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the court below for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made above. The court below, after affording both sides an opportunity to adduce further evidence if they

¶36

¶37

C.R.P.No.537 of 2008

¶38

chose, shall dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date appearance of the parties before the court below.

¶39

Parties shall mark appearance before the court below on

¶40

25.02.2013.

¶41

Sd/A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

P.A TO JUDGE

¶44

K.S.E.Board v. George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.E.Board v. George

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

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs K.Govinda Pillai

Karshaka Kudumbadharana Sangham NO.58/70.VETTICKAL, Rep.by Its Board Member K.K.Madhavan Vs Karshaka Kudumbadharana Sangham NO.58/70, Rep.by Its President v.S.Mohandas

S.K. Thankaraj Vs Suchithra Nair Alias Ammini

M.A. Philippose Vs Pappy Madhavan and Others

Babu Vs Karthayani

Hayarunnissa Vs South Malabar Gramin Bank