KSEB challenged an enhanced electricity-line compensation award. The court found no merit in the revision: the Commissioner's report credibly assessed affected area and land value, and KSEB adduced no oral or documentary evidence or objection to the report. The revision petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945
CRP NO. 153 OF 2021
IN OP (ELE) NO.98 OF 2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT &
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TRANSMISSION.SUB DIVISION, KSEB, HMT COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM-683 503.3 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KSEB, HMT COLONY P.O, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM-683 503.BY ADVS.
K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
JEEMON K.ABRAHAM
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. ABRAHAM, KURISINKAL HOUSE,
KUMARAPURAM P.O., MORAKKALA KARA, KUNNATHUNADU
VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN-683 565.
BY ADVS.
VINEETH KURIAKOSE
DOMINIC JOHNSON
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRP NO. 153 OF 2021
..2..
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 13thday of March, 2024
Kerala State Electricity Board has preferred the
above revision challenging the order of the
Additional District Judge, North Paravur, dated
08.01.2020 in O.P.(Electricity) No.98/2018, which
enhanced the compensation on account of drawing of
electric line through the respondent’s property
under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraphs Act,
1885, read with Section 164 of the Indian
Electricity Act, 2003.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioners and the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners first
..3..
CRP NO. 153 OF 2021
submitted that although a tower bearing No.11 was
erected in the property of the respondent, no line
was drawn through the same. Learned counsel handed
over a copy of the Commissioner’s report, wherein
existence of coconut trees has been referred,
which will not happen, if a line is drawn through
the property. It was then pointed out that the
respondent’s property is virtually a paddy land,
as referred to in point no.1 of the commissioner’s
report and that the line was drawn in the year
2011, whereas the respondent approached the
District Court only in the year 2018. Therefore,
the value of the property as assessed by the
Commissioner as on the date of his visit in the
year 2019 cannot be taken stock of for the purpose
of compensation. Leaned counsel handed over a copy
of the objection preferred by the petitioner,
wherein the tower installed is comprised in an
area of 81 square meters only and the total area
CRP NO. 153 OF 2021
..4..
affected by the drawing of electric line is only
4.5 cents. However, the same has been found to be
3.780 cents and 17 cents respectively, by the
learned commissioner. The same cannot be accepted
and acted upon without any supporting evidence, is
the submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. It is the further contention of the
petitioner that Ext.A2 is a document, which is not
comparable to the respondents’ property and hence
the value of the land reckoned by the learned
District Judge, based on Ext.A2 is also erroneous.
4.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
would submit that apart from filing an objection
to the claim for compensation, no evidence – oral
or documentary – whatsoever, is adduced by the
petitioner herein. Learned counsel would also add
that there was no serious cross-examination even
of PW1. Learned counsel for the respondent would
CRP NO. 153 OF 2021
..5..
clarify that the land in question is not a paddy
land, but it was reclaimed years back and it is a
pucca garden land, as could be seen from the
description made by the Advocate Commissioner in
the report. It is specifically pointed out that
the land in question is situated at a higher
altitude than the rest of the lands, with basement
foundation on the boundaries. Learned counsel then
pointed out that electric line is drawn through
the middle of the property, and thus dividing the
property into two; wherefore the utility of the
property has been diminished substantially.
According to the learned counsel, the impugned
order of the learned Additional District Judge
warrants no interference.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on
both sides, this Court finds little merit in this
Revision Petition. This Court notice that the
..6..
CRP NO. 153 OF 2021
property of the respondent through which line has
been drawn and the tower has been erected is not a
paddy land, as contended for by the leaned counsel
for the petitioner. What is specifically stated in
the Commissioner’s report under point no.1 is that
the property is a reclaimed land, which is lying
at a higher altitude than the neighbouring land.
In point no.1 itself, it is stated that line has
been drawn through almost the middle of the said
property. Basement is constructed on all the four
sides of the property, with pucca boundary wall on
the southern and western sides. On the northern
side, there is a Panchayat road providing access
to the property and a gate is also erected
therein. The description would further state that
the Info Park – Morakkala PWD road is situated at
a distance of about 50 feet in the north-south
direction.
6.Secondly, under point no.2, the Commissioner
CRP NO. 153 OF 2021
..7..
would state that the property is a fertile land
with proper road access, with a few coconut trees
and the rest of the portion remaining barren.
Under point no.3 the Commissioner had specified
the survey numbers of the property and assessed an
extent of 3.780 cents, for the purpose of erection
of tower and another 17 cents of land, as the area
affected by the drawing of electric lines. It
cannot be said that the same has been assessed
without any basis as contended for by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. This Court notice that
a plan has been attached to the Commissioner’s
report, which is drawn - with all side
measurements - by one P.D.Jose, who is the
possessed of Certificate bearing No.99/1983. The
affected area, as also, the tower is separately
shown and it is on the basis of such plan/sketch
that the area occupied by the tower, as also, the
area affected by the drawing of the electric line
CRP NO. 153 OF 2021
..8..
has been arrived at by the learned Commissioner.
This Court cannot find any objection in respect of
the course adopted by the learned Commissioner.
7.In point no.4, the Commissioner found that the
respondents’ property is located in an area, which
is being developed day by day and which is
proximate to various industries, Government
Offices, Church, Temple, etc. An enquiry was made
by the Commissioner revealed that the property is
having a value of about 4 lakhs per cent, in
respect of which value, the Commissioner got
satisfied, having regard to the importance of the
locality. On the basis of that value as on the
date of the enquiry, the learned Commissioner
found that the value as on the date of drawing of
electric line can be taken as Rs.3 lakhs per cent.
The hardship caused to the respondent on account
of the drawing of line has been narrated in detail
..9..
CRP NO. 153 OF 2021
in the Commissioner’s report, based upon which the
diminition of value has been reckoned as 70% by
the Commissioner in respect of the 17 cents
affected by the drawing of electric line and the
entire value in respect of 3.780 cents, where the
electric tower is installed.
8.Although the Commissioner reported Rs.3 lakhs
per cent, the learned District Judge has reckoned
Rs.2 lakhs per cent in the impugned order. This
cannot be taken to be on the higher side on any
reckoning. The contention that what has been
recommended by the Commissioner is the value as on
the date of inspection in the year 2019 cannot be
accepted going by the contents of the
Commissioner’s report, which this Court had
referred to already.
9. It is quite important to note that no evidence
CRP NO. 153 OF 2021
..10..
– oral or documentary – whatsoever, has been
adduced by the petitioner herein in support of the
objection filed to the claim petition. No
objection is seen filed to the Commissioner’s
report as well.
In such state of affairs, this Court finds no
merit in the instant Civil Revision Petition and
the same would stand dismissed.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Skk//12.03.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the compensation enhanced by the District Judge for drawing an electric line and erecting a tower over the respondent's property should be disturbed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Kerala State Electricity Board
The Assistant Executive Engineer Transmission, Sub Division, KSEB, Kalamassery
The Deputy Chief Engineer Transmission Circle, KSEB, Kalamassery
Jeemon K. Abraham
C. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court