Remanded

C.P.Jose v. the Deputy General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India

Kerala HC24 Jul 2018CRP/417/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Krishna Permanent Revision Court allowed the petitioner, a land owner, to challenge the compensation awarded for the drawing of an electric line. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for determination of diminution in land value and tree yield.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court below for disposal de novo.

C.P.Jose Vs the Deputy General Manager, Power Grid… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

CRP.No. 417 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP(ELECTRICITY) 79/2010 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKOD DATED 13-11-2017

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

C.P.JOSE,

¶9

AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. PAILI, RESIDING AT CHAKKALAKUDIYIL HOUSE, P.O. KUPPAYYAKKODE, ENGAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT :

¶12

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA POST AREEKODE, UGRAPURAM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673639.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI(B/O)

¶14

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

RVS. 26/07/2018

¶16

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C. R. P. No.417 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24^th day of July, 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 towards yield from the trees. As regards the question of diminution in land value, the first question that arises is ascertainment of the market

¶22

C. R. P. No.417 of 2018

¶23

:- 2 :-

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

has to be remitted back to the court below to

¶27

consider the following aspects;

¶28

i. Yield revealed from each tree in the land

¶29

belonged to each of the petitioners.

¶30

ii. Determination of the diminishing land value,

¶31

after ascertaining the market value and any other

¶32

C. R. P. No.417 of 2018

¶33

:- 3 :-

¶34

component relating to the assessment.

¶35

It is open for the parties to bring to the notice

¶36

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.”

¶37

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 cases shall be read as part of this order. Parties to appear in the court below on 05.09.2018.

¶38

Sd/SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

¶39

kns/-

¶40

//True Copy//

¶41

P.S. to Judge

C.P.Jose v. the Deputy General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.P.Jose v. the Deputy General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India

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

Fr. Jacob Njerinjampilly Vs Dr. K. Mohammed Basheer

Vallikkutty Vs C.Narayanikutty

S.N.Educational Cultural Trust Vs Sudheer

Shaju George Vs the Deputy General Manager

Joseph.O.T Vs the Deputy General Manager

O.J.Thomas Vs the Deputy General Manager