IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10826 of 2010(O)
1. PADMINI, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. KORAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :31/03/2010
O R D E R
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
————————————-
WP(C) No.10826 of 2010-O
————————————-
Dated 31st March 2010
Judgment
Aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.2010 in IA
No.122/10 in OP No.432/06, the petitioner before the Court
below has come up before this Court.
2. The petitioner claims to be in absolute
possession and enjoyment of a property comprised in RS
No.399/1 of Kunnamangalam village. During the year
2001, the respondent Board utilised a portion of the
property owned by the petitioner for drawing a 110 KV DC
line. Towards the value of the trees cut and removed, the
respondent awarded a sum of Rs.58,654/- to the petitioner.
Since the petitioner was dissatisfied with the amount
awarded by the Board, she approached the District Court
as contemplated under the Indian Telegraph Act, for
enhanced compensation. Copy of the said OP is produced
as Ext.P1. After filing counter statement by the
WPC 10826/10 2
respondent, the petitioner filed an application for
amendment of the OP, incorporating the value of the
property and the extent of land rendered useless as a
result of the drawing of line. The said amendment was
allowed. Thereafter, she again filed an amendment
application seeking a prayer for additional compensation of
Rs.2,60,000/- towards diminution in land value. Ext.P4 is
the copy of the said application. That was rejected by the
Court below on the ground that it was highly belated. The
learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Court
below was not justified in dismissing the amendment
application.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent, on
the other hand, justified the dismissal of the amendment
application and submitted that it was the second
amendment application filed by the petitioner and it was
filed only to drag on the proceedings. He submitted that the
petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs in this Petition.
WPC 10826/10 3
4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, one fails to understand what is the
prejudice caused to the respondent by allowing the
application for amendment. Going through the facts of the
case, it cannot be said that the amendment sought for, is
not necessary for the proper adjudication of the issue
involved in this case. It is felt that the Court below ought not
have dismissed the application for amendment.
Accordingly, this Petition is allowed. Ext.P4 IA stands
allowed. The respondent shall, if so advised, file an
additional counter affidavit.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sta
WPC 10826/10 4