IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 391 of 2007() --------------------- OPEA.662/2002 of ADDL.D.C.,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------- THANKAPPAN, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.NEELAKANDAN, SMITHA BHAVAN, CHERUTHANA VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPALLI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT: COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------ POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, LOCAL OFFICE AT NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPPAD. ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON 09/12/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS J., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No.391 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 ORDER This C.R.P. is filed by the petitioner in O.P.(E.A.) No.662 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Court, Alappuzha. The respondent herein was the respondent in that O.P., which was filed by the petitioner under Sec.16 of the Indian Telegraphic Act and 51 of the Indian Electricity Act. 2. The case of revision petitioner is that he is the owner and in possession of 24 cents of land comprised in Sy.Nos.252/9 and 252/10 of Cheruthana village. The respondent/Power Grid Corporation of India, for the purpose of drawing 220 KV electric line cut and removed several trees both yielding and non yielding from the property of the revision petitioner. The compensation awarded is only Rs.3,098/- which is very meagre and unreasonable. C.R.P. No.391 of 2007 ::::: 2 ::::: The method of valuation adopted is arbitrary and illegal. The respondent has not taken into consideration the future yield from the trees and importance of the locality, in fixing the compensation. 5 cents of the petitioner's land is injuriously affected by the drawing of electric line. The market value of the land in the locality is Rs.30,000/- per cent. So the petitioner is entitled to get enhanced compensation for the cutting of trees and compensation for diminution of land value as claimed in the petition. 3. The respondent filed objection contending that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable and that the valuation statement and mahazar were prepared in the presence of the petitioner. He further contended that all the relevant factors such as future yield from the trees, market value of the land in the locality and the diminution of land value were taken into consideration for fixing the compensation and that the petitioner's land is not injuriously affected by the drawing of electric line. 4. Before the Additional District Court, PW1 was examined and Exts. A1 to 6 were marked. The Additional District Judge on C.R.P. No.391 of 2007 ::::: 3 ::::: considering the evidence awarded Rs.2,059/- as enhanced compensation for the cutting of coconut trees and disallowed the claim for compensation for diminution in land value. Against the order rejecting that claim, the petitioner filed this C.R.P. 5. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that Ext.A1 is a document relating to similarly situated property and the land value shown in that document is Rs.16,220/- per cent. Based on that document the market value of the land, in this case, can be assessed as Rs.10,000/- per cent. The electric line is drawn through 24 cents of property belonging to the petitioner and therefore the area injuriously affected can be fixed as 5 cents and the percentage of diminution in land value can be taken as 20%. Calculating on that basis, the revision petitioner is entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for diminution in land value. Accordingly this C.R.P. is allowed and the revision petitioner is allowed to realise a sum of Rs.10,000/- as additional C.R.P. No.391 of 2007 ::::: 4 ::::: compensation from the respondent together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. There is no order as to costs. M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/