IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10826 of 2010(O) --------------------------------------- [OP.NO.432/2006 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, KOZHIKODE] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- PADMINI, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. KORAN, MARUVATHU HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. MR.V.G.ARUN, MR.T.R.HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR. P.P. THAJUDEEN, S.C, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. 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