Partly allowed

The Secretary v. P.v.Chackochan

Kerala HC16 Sept 2014CRP/47/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition partly, modifying the Additional District Court's order on compensation for diminution in land value. The Court found the 40% diminution rate excessive for a 110 KV line and fixed it at 30%, reducing the balance award to ₹3,85,819/- with interest.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order modified; balance compensation awarded to respondents is ₹3,85,819/- with interest at 6% per annum from date of cutting of trees.

The Secretary Vs P.v.Chackochan — Land Acquisition | 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 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/25TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

CRP.No. 47 of 2010 ( )

¶6

ELECTRICITY OP 100/1997 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC-I), ERNAKULAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶8

THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.)

¶10

SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

P.V.CHACKOCHAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.VARU, PUDUPURAKKAL, POONITHURA.P.O KOCHI.

¶13

P.C.VARGHESE, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.VARU, PUDUPURAKKAL , POONITHURA.P.O KOCHI.

¶14

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶16

¶17

C.R.P. No.47 of 2010

¶18

Dated this the 16^th day of September, 2014

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶21

The Kerala State Electricity Board has come up in revision challenging order dated 31.03.2009 passed by the Additional District Court (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam in Electricity O.P. No.100/1997.

¶22

Through the drawal of 110 KV Aroor – Kalamassery electric line, an extent of 41.880 cents of property of the respondents has become useless. The question came up before the court below was regarding the compensation on account of diminution in land value. The court below has fixed the diminution in land value at 40% by fixing the land value at ₹35,000/- per cent. It seems that the court below has fixed an amount of ₹5,86,320/- as diminution in land value and another amount of ₹21,000/- as diminution in land value for 1.500 cents of land occupied by

¶23

CRP.47/2010

¶24

: 2 :

¶25

a tower. After deducting an amount of ₹69,671/- which was already awarded, the petitioner was directed to pay the balance amount of ₹5,37,649/-.

¶26

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, the diminution at the rate of 40% calculated by the court below is on the higher side. Even though it has been challenged that the court below ought not to have considered the land value at ₹35,000/- per cent, it seems that Ext.A1 sale deed, which is in respect of the neighbouring property, was considered by the court below in fixing the land value. Ext.A1 was executed in the year 1997 whereas, the electric line was drawn in the year 1992. Even though the land value shown in Ext.A1 is ₹85,000/- per cent, the court below has fixed the land value in respect of the land in question at ₹35,000/- per cent. By considering the importance of the locality in which the property is situated and the land value in Ext.A1, it cannot be said that the land value of ₹35,000/- per cent fixed by the court below is on the

¶27

CRP.47/2010

¶28

: 3 :

¶29

higher side. It seems that the said land value is reasonable. At the same time, being a 110 KV line, this Court is of the view that the diminution could only be considered as 30% instead of 40%. In such case, the compensation on account of the diminution in land value for 41.880 cents will come to ₹4,39,740/-. Along with it, an amount of ₹15,750/- only can be awarded as compensation for diminution in land value for the 1.500 cents of property covered by the tower. Matters being so, the total amount to be paid is ₹4,55,490/-. An amount of ₹69,671/- was already awarded. Therefore, the balance amount to be paid is ₹3,85,819/-. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be modified to that effect.

¶30

In the result, this C.R.P. is allowed in part by modifying the impugned order by altering the balance amount of compensation to be paid to the respondents as ₹3,85,819/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of cutting of the trees till the date of realisation.

¶31

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶32

aks/17/09

The Secretary v. P.v.Chackochan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary v. P.v.Chackochan

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

Sajeevkumar Vs Th Sub Inspector of Police

Sudheer Vs State of Kerala

Sivanandan @ Thankachan Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs K.J.Joseph and Anr.

S.Subramanya Iyer Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Kottadan Ahammed Kutty Vs Taluk Land Board