Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 3254
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
THAMPI C.K – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA – Respondent
CRP NO. 496 OF 2014 | OP NO.47 OF 2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.ABEETHA PUSHPODARAN, SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN, SRI.P.A.HARISH, SMT.SANIKA.V.S., SMT.DONA PAUL, SMT.SHILPA K.
For the Respondents: SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
The court requires reassessment of land valuation, taking into account comparable transactions and evidence presented.
Headnote:This revision petition concerns the challenge against compensation awarded for land acquisition. The petitioner argued for a higher valuation based on comparable property transactions. The court noted discrepancies in the valuation and the need for reconsideration based on additional evidence. The matter was remanded for reassessment of land valuation and interest rates. The judgment emphasizes swift resolution within six months.
ORDER
The revision petitioner is aggrieved by the compensation granted by the Additional District Court, Kozhikode in O.P. No.47/2011. The petitioner had contended that the market value of the land is Rs.30,000/- and more than 75 cents cannot be profitably used. The court had fixed the land value of Rs.6,000/- per cent and the area affected as 51 cents. One of the documents which have been relied on by the petitioner is Ext.A2 document which relates to a transaction between a Co-operative bank and a private party. The consideration in the said document is Rs.1,49,000/- per cent. The said document relates to a property which is in Kodenchery town about 2 Kms from the petitioner’s property. The Commissioner has submitted a report wherein it is stated that there were several institutions and commercial establishments within 5 KMs radius of the petitioner’s property. It also noted that Velankode High School, Kodenchery Government College, St.Mary’s Church, St.Mary’s LP School, Koduvally Sub Registrar’s Office, Kodenchery Holly Cross Hospital, Government Hospital, Kodenchery, etc. are situated within 1½ KMs from the above property. However, finding that Ext.A2 relates to commercial site, the court has not reckoned Ext.A2. The report of the Commissioner would show that the property acquired from the petitioner is more fertile than the property relating to Ext.A2 though both are garden lands. The court has proceeded to fix the value on the basis of the fair value register at Rs.15,000/- per Are. As regards the contention that 75 cents of land has become unusable, there is no serious consideration. Ext.A2 document is dated
08.02.2008 and the trees from the property were cut during
2010. Hence the period is relatable.
In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that a reconsideration is required and the case is remanded back for reconsideration regarding the extent and value of the land. The parties are free to adduce additional evidence, if so advised. The petitioner has also a contention that only 6% interest had been granted from the date of cutting till the date of full and final payment. The question regarding the interest shall also be gone into by the trial court. Since the matter is very old, it is expected that the court is able to complete the proceedings within six months. The parties shall appear before the court below on 11.02.2026.
Sd/-
