IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 316 of 2004()
1. THE SECRETARY, AMMENEZHATHU BHUVANESWARY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE K.S.E.BOARD, REP. BY ITS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.KRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :25/07/2008
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
------------------------------------------
C.R.P No. 316 of 2004
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of July 2008
ORDER
The Petitioner in O.P (EA) 180/98 on the file of the District Judge,
Alappuzha is the revision petitioner herein. The revision petitioner
disputes the total area injuriously affected due to the installation of the
tower. According to him, 10 Cents of property has been taken by the
K.S.E.B. for the purpose of installation of the tower. Ext.A2 is the report
submitted by the Commissioner in which it is stated that an extent of 9.564
Cents was the exact area utilised by the Board for the purpose of
erecting the tower. The Commissioner was examined as PW2 and the
report was proved through him. The court below found that the K.S.E.B.
not at all disputed the erection of the tower and the evidence of PW2 also
remains unchallenged. The court below fixed the area injuriously affected
as 6 Cents relying on Ext.A1 judgment in O.P (E.A) 213/1997 between the
same parties. The court below fixed the compensation for the 6 cents
of land which was injuriously affected, at the rate of 20,000/- per Cent.
Thus the court below awarded Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation for the
property utilised for erecting the tower.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that the
total area affected by the installation of tower is not 6 Cents as indicated
by the court below . As per the Commission report the area taken for the
C.R.P No. 316 of 2004 -2-
erection of the tower is 9.564 Cents. I find that there is no reason for not to
rely on the Commission report which remains unchallenged. I am of the
view that the extent of land utilised for the installation of the tower is 9.564
Cents and the revision petitioner is entitled to compensation for the said
extent. Accordingly the order under challenge is modified. The revision
petitioner is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 71,200/- for
the balance extent of land ( 9.564 Cents- 6 Cents)with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of installation of the tower till realisation.
The court below awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the
additional compensation from the date of cutting of trees till realisation. It
is made clear that the rate of interest for the entire compensation
including the compensation granted by the court below, shall be from the
date of installation of the tower i.e 28.5.1997 till realisation.
In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order
passed by the court below is modified. The Civil Revision petitioner is
entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 71,200/- with 6% interest
from the date of installation of the tower i.e 28.5.1997 till realisation.
There will be no order as to costs.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE
es