Remanded

Martha Philipose v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Kerala HC4 Jun 2018CRP/323/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court, in a civil revision, held that the compensation awarded for land acquisition for an electric line was insufficient. The court remanded the matter to the lower court for re-determination of market value and tree yield based on evidence, noting inordinate delay disallowed interest.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the court below for de novo disposal with fresh evidence regarding market value and tree yield.

Martha Philipose Vs Power Grid Corporation of India… — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

CRP.No. 323 of 2018

¶6

OP.NO.439/2010 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶8

MARTHA PHILIPOSE, W/O. PHILIPOSE, AGED 79 YEARS, PADAPPANAMIKKAL HOUSE, KUPPAYAKODE P.O., PIN-673 580, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.PUSHPODARAN

¶10

SMT.ABEETHA PUSHPODARAN.

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶12

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, P.O. UGRAPURAM, PIN-673 639, AREEKODE, AREEKODE AMSOM AND DESOM OF ERNAD TALUK OF MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA.

¶13

BY SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC.

¶14

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs. 13/06/2018.

¶16

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C. R. P. No.323 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4^th day of June, 2018

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in respect of the drawing of MysoreKozhikode 400 KV electric line, the land ownerclimant is in revision.

¶20

Similar matters for enhancement of compensation relating to the drawal of the very same electric line were disposed of by this court as per order dated 07.03.2017 in C.R.P. No.144/2013 and connected matters. The issue in this C.R.P. is the same and hence, this C.R.P. is being disposed of on similar lines.

¶21

The challenge on the ground of inadequacy of compensation is mainly under two heads. Firstly, regarding the quantum awarded for diminution in land value; secondly regarding the quantum awarded

¶22

C. R. P. No.323 of 2018

¶23

:- 2 :-

¶24

towards yield from the trees. As regards the question of diminution in land value, the first question that arises is ascertainment of the market value. As held by this Court in the order dated 07.03.2017 in C.R.P. No.144/2013 and connected cases, the determination of land value cannot be solely based upon the fair value as fixed by the revenue authorities. The market value will have to be independently considered and arrived at by the court. As regards the yield from the trees, the respondent was guided by the schedule prepared by the Agricultural Department. This Court in the order in C.R.P. No.144 of 2013 (above referred to) has held that the question of yield from the trees is to be considered based on evidence. In

¶25

paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said order this Court observed thus:

¶26

C. R. P. No.323 of 2018

¶27

:- 3 :-

¶28

“9. This Court is of the view that this matter

¶29

has to be remitted back to the court below to consider the following aspects;

¶30

i. Yield revealed from each tree in the land

¶31

belonged to each of the petitioners.

¶32

ii. Determination of the diminishing land value, after ascertaining the market value and any other component relating to the assessment.

¶33

It is open for the parties to bring to the notice of the court below any other aspect, which has not been considered while determining the diminution value of the land. Parties are at liberty to adduce fresh evidence.”

¶34

The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court below for disposal denovo. The directions given in the order dated 07.03.2017 in C.R.P. No.144 of 2013 and connected

¶35

C. R. P. No.323 of 2018

¶36

:- 4 :-

¶37

cases shall be read as part of this order. Parties to appear in the court below on 25.07.2018.

¶38

There was inordinate delay of 2132 days in

¶39

filing the Civil Revision Petition. While condoning the delay, this Court had ordered that the petitioner shall not be entitled for interest, for the amount if any to be enhanced, for the period covered by the delay. While passing fresh orders, the court below shall take notice of the same and pass orders accordingly.

¶40

Sd/SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

¶41

kns/-

¶42

//True Copy//

¶43

P.S. to Judge

Martha Philipose v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Martha Philipose v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.K. Narayanan Potty Vs Lalthambika Antharajnam

Sahadevan Vs C.K. Rajendraprasad (Died)

Muhammedkutty Vs Moideenkutty

Vijayan.K.G Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Dr. Sherly Bhaskaran Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

Moly Thomas Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Limited