Allowed

Kerala State Electricity Board v. P.N.Chadrasekharan Nair

Kerala HC16 Feb 2024CRP/461/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a revision challenging compensation calculation for shifting an electric tower. It held Land Acquisition Act methods were impermissible. The Court upheld a 10% enhancement and fixed compensation at Rs.10,14,750 with 9% interest, payable within three months.

What did the court decide?

Compensation fixed at Rs.10,14,750 with 9% interest from 19.03.2012, payable within three months.

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs P.N.Chadrasekharan Nair — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

CRP NO. 461 OF 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP(ELE) 15/2016 OF ADDITIONAL .DISTRICT COURT

¶7

& MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,THODUPUZHA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:

¶9

1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001.

¶10

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD TRANSMISSION DIVISION,THODUPUZHA-685584.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.K.P.ASHOK KUMAR, SC, KERALA STATE EL B.PREMOD

¶13

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT:

¶14

1 P.N.CHADRASEKHARAN NAIR AGED 76 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN NAIR,KOODATHINAL HOUSE, NELLIKAVU ROAD,KOLANI, MANAKKAD, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. PIN.685584. 2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KOILUMALA,PAYINAVU PO, IDUKKI.685603, KERALA.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN SMT.R.RANJANIE SRI.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (G.P.)

¶16

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

C.R.P.No. 461 of 2017

¶18

..2..

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2024

¶21

This C.R.P. is preferred by the Kerala State Electricity Board and another challenging the Award dated 16.02.2017 of the Ist Additional District Court, Thodupuzha in O.P. (Electricity)No.15/2016. The essential challenge raised in this revision is the method adopted by the learned District Judge in calculating the compensation on account of an electric tower being shifted to the premises of the respondents

¶22

herein. The method of calculation of compensation, as contemplated in the Land Acquisition Act, has been adopted and

¶23

compensation by way of solatium even has been granted by the trial court, which course is clearly impermissible, is the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners.

¶24

C.R.P.No. 461 of 2017

¶25

..3..

¶26

2. Although, learned counsel for the

¶27

respondents would oppose the above submissions, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Limited and Others

¶28

[2017 (5) SCC 143] and also a Division Bench of this Court in V.P.Denny and Others v. Union of India (W.P.(C)No.14898/2020) dated 08.09.2020, the legal position appears to be settled that the method of compensation, as envisaged in the Land Acquisition Act, cannot be adopted for fixing the compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act, r/w provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 . Learned counsel for the respondents would, however, submit that, 1^st respondent is aged 87 years and

¶29

he is ailing, wherefore, a quietus has to be arrived at in the matter of compensation on account of shifting of the electric tower. In view of the fact that, the methodology adopted

¶30

C.R.P.No. 461 of 2017

¶31

..4..

¶32

under the Land Acquisition Act, cannot be approved, two question s remain. The first is with respect to an enhancement of 10% given by the learned District Judge, on the reason that the fair value fixed will generally be less than the market value. The 2^nd question is with respect to the rate of interest provided in the Award in question, that is 12% per annum. As regards the rate of interest, there were some disputes between the parties and for the purpose of arriving at a quietus, this Court is of the opinion that, interest can be directed to be given at the rate of 9% per annum, from the effective date of acquisition till the date of actual payment, without there being any provision for structured payment of interest, as provided

¶33

in the Land Acquisition Act. As regards the 10% enhancement given by the trial court, this Court

¶34

finds nothing wrong. The amount fixed by the District Collector is Rs.7,50,000/- per are . The

¶35

C.R.P.No. 461 of 2017

¶36

..5..

¶37

extent involved is 1.23 ares. The value fixed by the District Collector is based on the fair value notification. All what is seen granted as enhancement is, only at the rate of 10% by the District Court, which according to this Court is just and reasonable, especially, when the petitioner is entitled for compensation, not on the basis of the fair value fixed, but on the basis of the market value.

¶38

3. In the circumstances, this impugned award is set aside and there will be direction to pay compensation in the manner as provided herebelow.

¶39

Value of 1.23 ares = Rs.8,25,000 x 1.23 = 10,14,750/-

¶40

The above amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 19.03.2012 till date of realisation. The amount already paid by the Board, to the extent of 50% of the compensation fixed by

¶41

C.R.P.No. 461 of 2017

¶42

..6..

¶43

the A.D.M. will be given due credit of. The balance amount shall be paid within a period of three months from today(16.02.2024), failing which the compensation amount fixed by this judgment will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

¶44

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, as above.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶47

Kerala State Electricity Board v. P.N.Chadrasekharan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Electricity Board v. P.N.Chadrasekharan Nair

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

Thomas Vs Poulose

The K.S.E.B. Vs M.Janadrhanan

M/S.Geo Motors Vs Suma Joseph

Vidhya.S Vs Santhoshkumar

Sara Surya George Vs Kuriakose I. Mathai

Shyni Joseph Vs Peter