Kerala High Court
Joseph vs Chairman on 23 February, 2024
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
CRP No.114 of 2015 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1945
CRP NO. 114 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OP 107/2006 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II, KALPETTA
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
1 JOSEPH,
S/O. DEVASSIA (DIED)MYLOTH (II), PULPALLY AMSOM DESOM,
SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK
SUPPLEMENTARY PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:-
2 THRESIYAMMA,
W/O. JOSEPH, MYLOTH (H), PULPALLY AMSOM DESOM, SULTHAN
BATHERY TALUK
3 VIPIN,
S/O. JOSEPH, MYLOTH (II), PULPALLY AMSOM DESOM,
SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK
4 VIKAS,
S/O. JOSEPH, MYLOTH (II), PULPALLY AMSOM DESOM,
SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK
5 VINI,
S/O. JOSEPH, MYLOTH (II), PULPALLY AMSOM DESOM,
SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK
BY ADV SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 CHAIRMAN,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2 ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KSEB
MASTER PLAN SUB EIVISIO, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE 4
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB
R.HARISHANKAR
CRP No.114 of 2015 2
OTHER PRESENT:
SC FOR KSEB A.ARUNKUMAR
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP No.114 of 2015 3
V.G.ARUN J.
-------------------------------------
C.R.P. No.114 of 2015
---------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of February 2024
ORDER
The petitioner is dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded towards the damages sustained due to the
drawing of 33 KV electric line across his property admeasuring 5
cents. Even though the petitioner claimed Rs.4,05,320/- towards
diminution in land value as well as the compensation for the value
of trees cut, the court below awarded only Rs.10,000/- towards
diminution in land value and declined the claim for compensation
towards value of the trees cut.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that entire 5
cents was rendered useless by drawing of the lines and amount
granted towards the diminution in land value is negligible, when
compared to the actual loss. It is pointed out that the Advocate
Commissioner had filed a report suggesting that, the value of land
would be around Rs.15,000/- per cent approximately. Instead of
taking these factors into consideration, the court below unilaterally
fixed the diminution at Rs.10,000/-. It is hence contended that the
impugned order ought to be set aside and the matter remanded for
fresh consideration.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB submitted that the
Court below had rightly fixed the compensation at Rs.10,000/- in
the absence of any evidence either oral or documentary.
4. Despite the earnest efforts made by the learned Counsel
for the petitioner, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned
order since no evidence was let in on behalf of the petitioner except
the commissioner's report. No document showing the value of
comparable land was produced nor was any witness examined in
support of the claim raised by the petitioner. Although learned
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had died by
the time the case was listed for trial, the legal heirs having
continued the proceedings, one of them or any other independent
witness should have been examined to substantiate the claim. In
the absence of either oral or documentary evidence, the court
below had fixed the compensation payable towards diminution in
land value on its own, which I find to be just and reasonable.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
Judge
dpk
