AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thomas P. Joseph, J.—This Civil Revision is in challenge of the order dated 30.01.2006 in O.P. (Ele.) No. 192 of 1996 passed by the First Additional District Court, Thrissur. For drawal of a 220 KV electric line, various improvements were cut and removed from the property of the petitioner. Though the Tahsildar appointed by the respondents assessed compensation payable to the petitioner at Rs. 59,655/- as per Ext. B2, the petitioner was paid only Rs. 26,852/-. Petitioner claimed enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,89,000/- by way of additional compensation for value of improvements and compensation for diminution in land value. The respondents resisted the application on various grounds.
The wife of the petitioner gave evidence of P.W. 1. She proved Exts. A1 to A3. The Assistant Engineer of the respondents was examined as R.W. 1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were proved for the respondents.
The learned Additional District Judge found that so far as claim for additional compensation for value of improvements is concerned, no reliable evidence is let in regarding the nature, type, variety of rubber, yield obtained and future earning capacity and hence no additional compensation could be paid for value of improvements. However, claim of the petitioner for compensation due to diminution in land value was considered. Based on the evidence of R.W. 1 it was found that apart from the 3.27 cents occupied by the tower, 63.51 is was affected by drawal of the line. Taking Rs. 2,000/- as the land value per cent and 20% of the same as compensation for diminution in land value, the learned Additional District Judge awarded Rs. 31,944/- under that count. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order and has filed this Civil Revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no additional compensation was awarded for value of improvements. It is contended that even R.W. 1 was not able to state the reason for withholding a substantial portion of Rs. 59,655/- assessed by the Tahsildar as per Ext. B2, but even the withheld amount is not awarded. The learned counsel also submitted that the land value fixed by the learned District Judge is low. Leaned counsel requested that petitioner may be given an opportunity to adduce evidence regarding the various claims made in the Civil Revision.
The learned counsel for the respondents contended that there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge.
It is seen that petitioner has not adduced any evidence regarding the yield and income he claimed from the improvements cut and removed from the property. The petitioner did not take out a commission to show the yield that could be obtained from the rubber trees. Regarding land value also, no document is produced to prove the actual market value of the property. Having regard to the circumstances stated and in spite of R.W. 1 not being able to give satisfactory explanation for withholding a substantial portion of the amount awarded by the Tahsildar as per Ext. P2, I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence. Needless to say that the respondents also will get opportunity to adduce further evidence if any. In that view of the matter the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter remitted to the trial court for a fresh decision.
Resultantly, the Civil Revision is allowed by way of remand as under:
(i) Order dated 30.01.2006 in O.P. (Ele.) No. 192 of 1996 of the First Additional District Court, Thrissur is set aside.
(ii) O.P. (Ele.) No. 192 of 1996 is remitted to the Additional District Court, Thrissur for fresh decision after giving both sides opportunity to adduce further evidence regarding all the claims made by the parties.
(iii) The parties shall appear in the said court on 24.01.2013.
All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed.