Allowed

Thomas v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC5 Aug 2021CRP/533/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CRP Nos. 533 and 534 of 2012, this Court allowed civil revision petitions challenging compensation awards regarding land injuriously affected by electric lines. The Court set aside impugned orders, remanding cases to the District Court for fresh consideration to determine compensation based on injurious affection principles and applicable procedures.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petitions allowed setting aside impugned orders and remanding to District Court for fresh consideration of compensation based on injurious affection principles.

Thomas Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

CRP.533 & 534/2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1943

¶7

CRP NO. 533 OF 2012

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPELE 45/2005 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KALPETTA,

¶9

WAYANAD

¶10

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶11

THOMAS AGED 54 YEARS S/O. KURIAKOSE, PULIYORATH HOUSE, PALLIKUNNU P.O., KANIYAMBETTA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS. SMT.SARITHA THOMAS SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695004, PATTOM P.O.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENONSCKSEB SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SC FOR KSEB ARUNKUMAR A.

¶18

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2021, ALONG WITH CRP.534/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

CRP.533 & 534/2012

¶20

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶24

THURSDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1943 CRP NO. 534 OF 2012

¶25

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPELE 99/2006 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KALPETTA,

¶26

WAYANAD

¶27

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶28

THOMAS AGED 54 YEARS S/O. KURIAKOSE, PULIYORATH HOUSE, PALLIKUNNU P.O., KANIYAMBETTA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶29

BY ADVS. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA SMT.SARITHA THOMAS

¶30

RESPONDENT/S:

¶31

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.

¶32

BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENONSCKSEB SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED

¶33

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2021, ALONG WITH CRP.533/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

CRP.533 & 534/2012

¶35

¶36

V.G.ARUN, J.

¶37

C.R.P.Nos. 533 and 534 of 2012

¶38

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of August, 2021

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

The revision petitioner is the owner of the landed properties in Kaniyambetta Village in Wayanad District. In November, 2003, the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) drew 33 KV electric line through the petitioner's property. For the purpose of drawing the electric line, various fruit bearing and yielding trees were cut and the land itself got injuriously affected. The petitioner approached the District Court, Kalpetta seeking just compensation by filing O.P(E).No.45 of 2005 and O.P(E).No.99 of 2006. By the common order, which is impugned herein, the court below granted enhanced additional compensation of Rs.21,408/- in O.P(E).No.45 of 2005 and Rs.988/- in O.P(E).No.99 of 2006. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in revision.

¶41

Sri.Alex M.Scaria, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 33 kv electric line was drawn across two parcels of land. The property affected injuriously in O.P(E).No.45 of 2003 is 65 cents of land and 128 fruit bearing trees were cut. In O.P(E).No.99 of 2006, 21 cents of land was affected and 7 fruit

¶42

CRP.533 & 534/2012

¶43

¶44

bearing trees were cut. The court below, without considering the evidence on record and the contention regarding injurious affection, granted only paltry sums towards enhanced compensation. Learned counsel contended that the properties are situated in a commercial area and the petitioner could have constructed commercial or residential buildings in his property. The presence of high tension lines makes it impossible for the petitioner to construct buildings and even to cultivate the land to its fullest extent. It is contended that the methodology adopted by the court below for fixing the compensation is not in accordance with the guidelines indicated by the Apex Court in Airport Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy [(2002)3 SCC 5270] and KSEB V. Livisha and others [(2007) 6 SCC 792] . The Advocate Commissioner had assessed the diminishing market value of the two properties as Rs.1,69,136/- and Rs.42,000/- respectively. The petitioner had also given evidence regarding the loss sustained due to the cutting of yielding trees and the diminution in land value consequent to the drawing of the electric lines. Even the respondent’s witness had admitted that the value of the property had diminished. In spite of such evidence, just compensation was not awarded for injurious affection. Learned counsel referred to excerpts from J.P.Singhal on the Law of Damages and

¶45

CRP.533 & 534/2012

¶46

¶47

Compensation and articles by eminent scholars to contend that fair compensation for injurious affection/planning blight is recognized across the world.

¶48

I heard the learned counsel for the respondent Board also, who contended that the impugned order warrants no interference.

¶49

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was sufficient evidence before the trial court regarding the manner in which the line was drawn and the extent to which the property was injuriously affected. The Advocate Commissioner had assessed the total compensation for the property in O.P(E).45 of 2005 at Rs.1,69,136/- and in O.P(E).99 of 2006 at Rs.42,000/-. There is no basis for the finding of the trial court that only trees were cut and removed and the petitioner can still cultivate the land and therefore the value of the property has not diminished. It is not discernible from the order as to how the trial court fixed 60% of the value suggested by the Government as the additional enhanced compensation. The manner in which compensation towards the value of the trees cut was fixed is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Airport Authority of India (supra).

¶50

For the aforementioned reasons, the civil revision petitions are allowed by setting aside the impugned orders. The original

¶51

CRP.533 & 534/2012

¶52

¶53

petitions are remanded to the District Court, Wayanad for fresh consideration. The court below is directed to consider the claim for compensation based on the principle of injurious affection and to fix the compensation for the trees cut, following the procedure prescribed in Airport Authority of India and Livisha (supra). The parties shall be afforded opportunity for adducing evidence. The parties shall co-operate with the court and the court below shall take earnest efforts to dispose of the cases within six months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

¶56

vgs

Thomas v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Runs Mon Vs Simpole

K.K.Dinesh @ Unni Vs Sunil

Noora Vs Hafiz

Reetha, Vs Ponnamma

Shafeek Vs Nafeela

Shijo Alva Jose Vs Jeevan Thampan