Remanded

Soloman v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC23 Sept 2014CRP/15/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition to quash an order granting marginal compensation for land affected by a high-tension electric line. The Court set aside the order, noting lack of evidence on the actual affected area, and remitted the matter for a commission to inspect the property and assess land values.

What did the court decide?

Grant of commission to inspect the property to determine the actual extent of affected area and land values for fresh disposal.

Soloman Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/1ST ASWINA, 1936 CRP.No. 15 of 2011 (E)

¶5

O.P.(E.A.) 27/2005 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,ALAPPUZHA.

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER::

¶7

SOLOMAN, S/O.AUGUSTINE, CHATHUPARAMBIL, AROOR TALUK, CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS.SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.M.R.VIBIN SMT.INDULEKHA JOSEPH

¶8

RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER::

¶9

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM K.S.E.B.PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

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

¶11

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶13

Dated this the 23^rd day of September, 2014

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The owner of a property, whose entire 8 cents of property

¶16

was allegedly affected on account of the drawal of 110 K.V. Aroor

¶17

Kalamassery electric line, had preferred O.P.(E.A.) No.27 of 2005 before the District Court, Alappuzha. According to the petitioner, his entire 8 cents of property was affected and the same was rendered useless on account of the high tension electric line. Along with an yielding coconut tree and an yielding arecanut tree, some other non-yielding trees also were cut and removed. The land value where the property situated, is running to lakhs and lakhs. Even then, a meagre compensation was arrived at and therefore, the same was challenged in the O.P.(E.A.). The learned Additional District Judge, through the impugned order, granted a marginal enhancement towards compensation on account of the trees cut and

¶18

C.R.P.No.15 of 2011

¶19

¶20

removed. The court below, in the absence of any other evidence, found that only two cents of land was affected on account of the drawal of the electric line. 30% of the market value was considered as adequate compensation for the injurious affection. The court below has granted an amount of ₹18,000/- as compensation, on account of the diminution in land value for the said two cents, by fixing the land value at ₹30,000/- per cent.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel, Smt.Indulekha Joseph, for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel, Shri.Pulikool Aboobacker, for the respondent.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the entire 8 cents of property has been affected on the account of the drawal of the electric line. It is also pointed out that even though several trees were cut and removed, no sufficient compensation was granted.

¶23

C.R.P.No.15 of 2011

¶24

¶25

On going through the impugned order, it seems that a marginal increase was given by the court below, as compensation for the trees cut and removed. I do not find anything to interfere in

¶26

the compensation with regard to the trees cut and removed from the property.

¶27

At the same time, it is a serious heart burn that the 110 K.V. high tension electric line was drawn through the property, thereby the entire property has become useless. It seems that the petitioner had not taken out any commission to inspect the property, in order to note down the actual area and extent of the property affected on account of the drawal of the electric line. It was in the absence of any such evidence, the court below was constrained to consider the extent of the affected area as 2 cents. Regarding the land value also, it seems that the court below has relied on Ext.A3 and found the land value as ₹30,000/-. If the land

¶28

C.R.P.No.15 of 2011

¶29

¶30

in question is similar to the land covered by Ext.A3, the court below ought to have considered the land value at ₹49,000/- per cent. Of course, evidence is required for all the same. To prove the actual extent of land affected on account of the drawal of the electric line and to prove the similarity of the property in question with the property covered by Ext.A3, this court is of the view that an opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to take out a commission to inspect the property and to prepare a plan and sketch showing the actual extent of property affected and also for reporting the similarity of the properties with the property covered by Ext.A3 and further, the importance of the property and the locality etc. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted to the court below.

¶31

In the result, this C.R.P. is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the court below for fresh

¶32

C.R.P.No.15 of 2011

¶33

¶34

disposal in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to take out a commission for noting down and reporting the matters observed above, in this order. The parties shall appear before the court below on 27.10.2014.

¶35

Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA , JUDGE

¶36

¶37

// TRUE COPY //

Soloman v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soloman v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Muthu Nair Vs Kodoth Karthiyayini Amma and Others

Ali Vs Vasudevan and Others

Ratheesh Kumar Vs Sadanandan Shaji

Puthenveettil Ayishabi Vs Koranhingattil Balakrishnan

State of Kerala Vs Santha Mathew and Others

S.Aniyan Vs Indira