Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 24]

Kerala High Court

The Kerala State Electricity Board vs Payavantha Kuttan'S Son Narayanan on 21 December, 1999

       

  

  

 
 
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT:

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

       MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/7TH ASWINA, 1936

                      CRP.NO. 1833 OF 2001 ( )
                      -------------------------

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP.ELECTRICITY 24/1991 OF DISTRUCT
                   COURT, MANJERI DATED 21-12-1999

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT:
----------------------------------

           THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
           REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

       BY ADVS.SRI.SATHYANATHA MENON SC FOR K.S.E.B.


RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
--------------------------


     PAYAVANTHA KUTTAN'S SON NARAYANAN


       R1  BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI

       THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION  HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD  ON
29-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:



                         B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
          ................................................................
                       C.R.P. No. 1833 of 2001
           ...............................................................
          Dated this the 29th day of September, 2014

                                 O R D E R

Challenging the compensation granted by the Kerala State Electricity Board in respect of the trees cut and removed from his property, for the passage of live overhead electric line through his property, the petitioner had preferred O.P(Electricity) No.24 of 1991 before the District Court, Manjeri. The learned District Judge allowed the OP (Ele.) thereby awarding an amount of 53,917/- as total compensation, including compensation on account of the trees cut and removed, and also diminution in land value on account of the same. Challenging the inadequacy of compensation granted on account of diminution in land value, the respondent herein had filed CRP 1609/2000 CRP 1833 of 2001 -: 2 :- before this Court. Complaining that the compensation granted by the learned District Judge is on the higher side, the KESB had preferred CRP 1833/2001 before this Court. It seems that CRP 1833/2011 was disposed of on 12.03.2004 without interfering with the total amount of compensation fixed by the court below. At the same time, the interest rate fixed by the court below at 12% has been modified and deducted to 9%. CRP 1609/2000 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 04.01.2005 whereby the compensation granted by the court below on account of diminution in land value was not interfered with. It seems that in the said order there was no interference in the interest rate granted by the court below. Based on order dated 04.01.2005 in CRP 1609/2000, the respondent in CRP 1833/2001 filed a review petition as R.P.No.729/2010 for getting the order reviewed and to restore the interest rate at 12%. This Court allowed the review on 10.02.2012 and recalled the order in CRP 1833/2001 and ordered to post CRP 1833 of 2001 -: 3 :- CRP 1833/2001 for hearing.

2. Heard the Learned Standing Counsel Sri.K.M. Sathyanatha Menon for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel Sri.T.Krishnan Unni for the respondent.

3. It has been pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that order dated 04.01.2005 passed by this Court in CRP 1609/2000 has not been challenged so far, and the same has become final. Through the said order, the CRP filed by the respondent herein was dismissed without any interference in the compensation or interest granted by the court below. When the said order has become final, the question is not open to any further challenge. As the matters in controversy was decided in order dated 04.01.2005 by this Court, there cannot be any further interference in the impugned order. Therefore, the only course open to this Court, at present, is to dismiss the present CRP also in line with the order dated 04.01.2005 CRP 1833 of 2001 -: 4 :- passed by this Court in CRP 1609/2000. The present CRP is devoid of merits, and is only to be dismissed, and I do so.

4. In the result, this CRP is dismissed.

All the interlocutory applications in this CRP are closed.

Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE ul/-

      [True copy]                        P.S. to Judge

CRP 1833 of 2001
                    -: 5 :-



                                 B. KEMAL PASHA, J

                           -------------------------------
                               C.R.P. No. 1833 of 2001

                            ------------------------------




                                        O R D E R




                           29th day of September, 2014