Partly allowed

St.Xavier'S Church v. K.S.E.B

Kerala HC17 Sept 2014CRP/509/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging the adequacy of compensation for land encroached upon by an electricity line and tower. The court directed the respondent to pay an additional sum as compensation for the tower land.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is entitled to an additional compensation of ₹7,000/- over and above the amount fixed by the court below, payable with interest at 6% per annum.

St.Xavier'S Church Vs K.S.E.B — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/26TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

CRP.No. 509 of 2011 (E)

¶6

O.P.(E.A.) 84/2004 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

ST.XAVIER'S CHURCH, VALYARA, THYCATTUSSERRY, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR FR.KURIAN KATTAKKAYAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.A.RAJEEV

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VIDYUTH BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶12

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

¶13

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶15

¶16

C.R.P. No.509 of 2011 E

¶17

- - - - -- - - - Dated this the 17^th day of September, 2014

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is challenging the inadequacy of

¶20

compensation fixed by the Additional District Court, Alapuzha, in O.P.(Ele.) No.84 of 2004.

¶21

The property belongs to the petitioner Church. Out of

¶22

the total extent of 75 cents of property, it seems that 40 cents of property have been affected on account of the drawal of 110 K.V. electric line. Certain trees were cut and removed. The Commissioner's report revealed an extent of 40 cents of land as the actual portion affected. It has been further revealed that a tower has also been installed in the property.

¶23

On the basis of Ext.A1 Document, the land value arrived

¶24

C.R.P. No.509 of 2011

¶25

¶26

at by the court below is ₹10,000/- per cent. 30% of the land value of the affected land was fixed as compensation on account of diminution in land value.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel, Shri.C.A. Rajeev, for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel, Shri.Sathyanatha Menon, for the respondent.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below ought to have considered a higher percentage as the diminution in land value. Further, it has been argued that even though a tower has been installed in the property and that portion of the property is practically lost to the petitioner, the 30% of the land value as compensation awarded for that portion of property, is inadequate. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the land value of that portion occupied by the tower ought to have been awarded as compensation for that portion of the property.

¶29

C.R.P. No.509 of 2011

¶30

¶31

Regarding the 30% of land value granted in respect of

¶32

the property affected due to the electric line, it does not call for any interference. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that 2 cents of land is occupied by the tower, in the absence of any evidence, the extent occupied by the tower can be considered as one cent. For that one cent of property, it seems that an amount of ₹3,000/- has been awarded as compensation by considering 30% as the diminution in land value. When that portion is occupied by the tower, the land value of that portion as such, has to be granted as compensation. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of ₹7,000/- more, as additional compensation over and above the amount fixed by the court below.

¶33

In the result, this C.R.P. is allowed in part and an amount of ₹7,000/- more is fixed as additional compensation payable to the petitioner over and above the amount fixed by the court below.

¶34

C.R.P. No.509 of 2011

¶35

¶36

The respondent shall pay the amount with interest at the rate of 6%

¶37

per annum from the date of cutting and removal of the trees, till

¶38

realisation.

¶39

Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA , JUDGE

¶40

¶41

// TRUE COPY //

St.Xavier'S Church v. K.S.E.B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St.Xavier'S Church v. K.S.E.B

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

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

The Secretary Vs P.v.Chackochan

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

Kseboard Vs Thomman Thomas

Lekshmikutty Amma Vs Abdul Majeed

Baby Vs St.Andrew'S Forane Church