IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 493 of 2005() --------------------- OPELE.53/1998 of DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------ KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN(SR.)SC,KSEB RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------- ANNAMMA THOMAS, THATTAMPARAMBU NIKARTHIL CHENNAM PALLIPPURAM MURI, PALLIPPURAM PANCHAYATH, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.JAICE JACOB THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO. 1254 OF 2007 IN C.R.P. NO. 493 OF 2005. DISMISSED 7.1.2008 Sd/-(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ----------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 493 OF 2005 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 O R D E R This revision is filed by the respondent - Kerala State Electricity Board against the order dated 18.3.2004 in O.P.(Ele.) No.53 of 1998 on the file of the of the District Court, Alappuzha. The respondent herein has claimed an amount of Rs.2,82,840/- as compensation stating that the land beneath the line has become totally unfit for any purpose and, therefore, the compensation now awarded by the Board is inadequate. The court below after considering the contentions of the petitioner/claimant came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.31,490/- towards diminution in land value. 2. The two points raised by the respondent in the Original Petition were considered by the court below. The claimant was examined as PW.1 and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on her side. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the Board and Ext.C1 commission report was marked as court exhibit. The compensation awarded by the Board for the trees cut and C.R.P.NO.493/2005 2 removed was Rs.1160/- . After considering the evidence on record, the court below found that it would be just and reasonable to award 25% of the amount given by the respondent/Board as enhanced compensation for the trees cut and removed which would come to Rs.290/-. The second question examined by the court below was whether the property of the petitioner had become useless and unfit for cultivation or construction of building due to the drawal of the power line and installation of tower. After rejecting Exts.A1 and A2 documents, the court below relied on Ext.C1 commission report and found that the electric line was drawn through the middle of the property and the tower was installed on the southern side of the property. The commissioner also noted that 52 ½ cents of the property has been cleared off by the respondent for drawal of the power line including the tower and, therefore the value and utility of the land is lost. Considering the evidence on record, the court below fixed land value at Rs.4000/- per cent as against a claim of Rs.20,000/- per cent. Based on the market value, the court below found that the claimant is entitled to Rs.31,200/- towards diminution in land value. 3. On a consideration of the evidence recorded in the impugned order, I am of the view that the reasons stated for granting enhanced compensation is just and fair and there is no necessity to interfere with the C.R.P.NO.493/2005 3 finding recorded. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P.NO.493/2005 4 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P.NO O R D E R 7TH JANUARY, 2008