IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 814 of 2008() --------------------- OPELE.15/1997 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS : RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WORLD BANK PROJECT SUB DIVISION KSEB, TRICHUR. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WORLD BANK PROJECT SUB DIVISION KSEB, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, WORLD BANK PROJECT, KSEB, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.V.MATHEW, 61 YEARS S/O.VARKEY, AGRICULTURIST, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPILLY KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (LAND ACQUISITION) KSEB, ERNAKULAM. 3. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR,(LA) KSEB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.T.I.DANIEL FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2011, THE COURT ON 20/12/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. ----------------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.814 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 20th December, 2011. O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the respondents 1 to 4 in O.P.(Ele) No.15/97 on the file of Additional District Court (Adhoc I), Ernakulam. The first respondent herein was the petitioner in that O.P., which was filed by him under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 and Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. 2. The case of the petitioner in the O.P. is briefly as follows : For the purpose of drawing 220 KV Lower Periyar Cochin electric line through the petitioner's property, the respondent cut and removed all the trees belonging to the petitioner. The compensation awarded by the Board for cutting and removal of the trees was very low and inadequate. Various seasonal crops and vegetables were also destroyed by the workers during the process of cutting and removal of the trees. The 6th respondent approved the valuation of the damages caused on account of the cutting and removal of the trees to the tune of Rs.4,70,897/-. Even though the amount was very Civil Revision Petition 814/08 2 low the 4th respondent arbitrarily reduced the compensation payable to the petitioner to Rs.2,84,475/-. This compensation is neither just nor reasonable. The petitioner was not given any notice before reducing the quantum of the award. The first respondent filed objection denying the averments in the petition. The cutting of trees for the purpose of drawing of electric line is admitted. The mahazar contains the exact number of trees cut. The valuation statement was prepared on the basis of the details of improvements and the details of the yield. The compensation awarded is full, fair and adequate. 3. Before the Additional District Court, Exts.P1 to P3, R1 and R1(a) were marked. The Additional District Judge, on considering the evidence on record awarded Rs.4,88,287/- as compensation for cutting of trees and Rs.2,60,000/- as compensation for diminution in land value. The Additional District Court awarded Rs.7,48,287/- as total compensation less the amount already received by the petitioner with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 19.11.1991 till the date of payment. Against that order, the respondents 1 to 4 filed this Civil Revision Petition 814/08 3 Civil Revision Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the court below should have found that the Board had awarded adequate compensation. The court below erred in grating additional compensation for the trees cut and removed. In the absence of evidence to show the land value, the court erred in granting the diminution in land value by assumption and presumptions. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order of the court below. 6. Ext.P1 is the mahazar prepared by the Deputy Tahsildar (LA), KSEB on 19.11.1991. If that is accepted by the petitioner the original valuation could have been as stated in Ext.R1, i.e., Rs.4,70,897/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the O.P. submitted that initially, the respondents have assessed the compensation of Rs.4,70,897/- and then it was reduced to the present amount of Rs.2,84,475/- which was paid to the Civil Revision Petition 814/08 4 petitioner in the O.P. The learned Additional District Judge, relying on Ext.R1 valuation statement fixed the compensation for cutting of trees as Rs.4,70,897/-. In the order under challenge, the Additional District Court has mentioned that 130 arecanut trees were cut and removed, which was not shown in the mahazar. The respondents in the O.P. did not object the inclusion of 130 arecanut trees cut and removed as shown in the statement filed by the petitioner in the O.P. The Additional District Judge awarded Rs.17,390/- as compensation for 130 arecanut trees cut and removed. 7. There is no dispute that 220 KV electric line was drawn through the property of the petitioner in the O.P., having an extent of 1 acre 30 cents. The petitioner in the O.P. claimed Rs.2,60,000/- as compensation for diminution in land value for 1 acre 30 cents, which will come to Rs.2,000/- per cent. Since the Additional District Judge has awarded only reasonable amount as compensation, I find no reason to interfere with that order. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as it is Civil Revision Petition 814/08 5 without any merits. There is no order as to costs. Sd/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. tgs (True copy) P.S. to Judge.