Dismissed

K.S.E.B v. Raman

Kerala HC22 Feb 2024CRP/1200/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala State Electricity Board challenged an enhanced compensation award for trees cut from a landowner's property while drawing a 100 KV electric line. The court upheld the District Judge's revaluation of coffee, cashew and arecanut prices and reduced deduction percentages, and dismissed the revision petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award dated 17/08/2004 confirming enhanced compensation with interest was confirmed; CRP dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

¶1

``IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

CRP NO. 1200 OF 2005

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 144/2001 OF ADDITIONAL .DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,THODUPUZHA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶8

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, K.S.E.BOARD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.
SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, KSEB
SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM SR.
SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
LIMITED

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶11

1 RAMAN,AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. ITTUNDAN, KOCHUPARAMBIL (H), KOMBODINJAL P.O., UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

K.S.E.B Vs Raman — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶21

This C.R.P. is preferred by the Kerala State
Electricity Board, which is directed against the
award dated 17.08.2004 of the Additional District
Court, Thodupuzha in O.P.(Electricity) No. 144/2001.

¶22

2.100 KV electric line was drawn through the
original respondent’s property in connection with the
Koothumkal-Panamkutty line, for which purpose certain
trees were cut and removed from the property of the
original respondent. Initially a compensation for
Rs.25,250/- was allowed. The same was enhanced to
Rs.40,234/- by the impugned award, for which amount
interest was directed to be paid at the the rate of
9% per annum from 10/04/1999, the date on which the
trees were cut, till realisation. The respondent was
also allowed to recover the interest on Rs.25,250/-
from 10/04/1999 till 14/11/2000 at the rate of 9% per
annum.

¶27

4.Having heard the learned counsel appearing
for the respective parties, this Court finds no
reason to interfere with the impugned award dated
17/08/2004. Cogent reasons have been stated by the
learned District Judge in awarding enhancement.
Enhancement is seen granted only in respect of the
following heads:

¶28

(i)The first is with respect to the price of
coffee. The petitioner Board fixed the same at Rs.15
per kilogram, whereas Ext.A2 document would indicate
a price of Rs.55.30 per kilogram. Ext.A2 was not
accepted as such, by the learned District Judge. It
was taken note of that Ext.A2 reflects the price of
clean coffee, of the type robusta and the said price
was fixed in an auction held at Bangalore. It was
held that the said price cannot be taken stock of. It

¶32

(ii) Another count is with respect to the prices
of cashew nuts and arecanuts. There, Ext.A1 Gazette
Notification was not taken stock of. Instead, the
court fixed the price as found in similar earlier
awards, at the rate of Rs.30 per kilogram for cashew
nut and Rs.50 per kilogram for arecanut. In respect
of the price fixed as above also, this Court finds no
reason to interfere.

¶33

(iii)The third count is with respect to the
deductions made by the Board for maintenance and also
towards cultivation expenses. For coffee, deduction
was made at the rate of 6% and for other
improvements, at the rate of 43.75%. The learned
District Judge found that the rates prescribed for
maintenance and cultivation expenses are on the
higher side. Accordingly, it was fixed at 35% for
arecanut and 30% for coffee and 25% for other

¶37

On an overall analysis of the impugned order, no
illegality or infirmity is found by this Court, so as
to warrant interference with the same. In these
circumstances the impugned order is confirmed and

K.S.E.B v. Raman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

P.a.Mathew Tharakan, Vs Mathai

Suhara Vs Liyas

P. Rajan Vs P. Govindan

Abdul Kareem Vs P.R.Danavan

Kunhippa Beary Vs Mammi Beary

K.S.E.B v. Raman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

P.a.Mathew Tharakan, Vs Mathai

Suhara Vs Liyas

P. Rajan Vs P. Govindan

Abdul Kareem Vs P.R.Danavan

Kunhippa Beary Vs Mammi Beary

A compact analysis

Coram

Jaganathan Unnithan Vs Syamala