Remanded

Mathai.P.a v. the Deputy General Manager

Kerala HC27 Jul 2018CRP/437/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the revision petitioner's challenge regarding compensation for land acquisition for a 400 KV electric line. Relying on a prior order in connected matters, the court held that market value must be independently considered and tree yield based on evidence. The impugned order was set aside and remanded to the lower court.

What did the court decide?

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

Mathai.P.a Vs the Deputy General Manager — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

CRP.No. 437 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP(ELE) 233/2009 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 10-11-2017

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

MATHAI P.A., AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.AUGUSTI, RESIDING AT PARAKATTIL HOUSE, POST THEYAPPARA, KOODUTHI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN

¶10

SMT.SANIKA.V.S.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

BY SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC

¶14

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

RVS. 28/07/2018

¶16

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C. R. P. No.437 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27^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.437 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.437 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

Mathai.P.a v. the Deputy General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathai.P.a v. the Deputy General Manager

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

Shaju George Vs the Deputy General Manager

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

Joseph.O.T Vs the Deputy General Manager

Manoj Joseph Vs the Deputy General Manager

Thomas Lukose Vs the Deputy General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Jilsamma Vs the Deputy General Manager