IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 618 of 2008() --------------------- OPEA.98/2002 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/IST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, NAGIARKULANGARA.P.O, HARIPAD. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------- SREEDEVI AMMA,W/O.LATE V.SUKUMARAN NAIR, EDANGELOOR PRASANTH BHAVAN, KANNANAKUZHY.P.O, CHARUMOODU, THAMARAKULAM VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN FOR R1 SRI.K.JAGADEESH FOR R1 SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.325/09 IN CRP.NO.618/08 DISMISSED. 17.2.2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.618 OF 2008 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order dated 18.10.2006 in O.P.(EA.).No.98 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha. The respondent, hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant' feeling aggrieved by the compensation adjudged and paid by the revision petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation', filed the above original petition seeking enhanced compensation for the trees cut and removed and damages caused to her property by the drawing of overhead lines through that property. The Corporation, for the purpose of drawing Kayamkulam-Edamon 220 KV electric transmission line, cut and removed 140 yielding rubber trees from the property of the claimant, which has an extent of one acre and ten cents. A sum of Rs.1,55,835/- was awarded to the claimant as compensation for the loss caused by the drawing of the overhead lines. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded, the claimant sought CRP.618/08 2 for enhanced compensation. Corporation resisted that claim contending that just and reasonable compensation had been paid. Previously, the court below, after conducting enquiry, had passed an award fixing a total compensation of Rs.2,35,834/-. Challenging that award as excessive, the Corporation had filed a revision before this Court. The revision was allowed and the case was remanded for fresh consideration. Pursuant to such remission, both parties adduced further evidence. After considering the materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides, a revised order was passed by the court below awarding the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,41,386/- directing the Corporation to pay such sum with 6% interest per annum from the date of cutting of trees till realisation. Compensation so fixed and awarded by the court below is challenged in this revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Compensation awarded is excessive and unreasonable, and further, there was no scientific assessment with reference to the relevant factors in adjudging the compensation, is the submission of CRP.618/08 3 the learned counsel for the Corporation. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted no interference with the award passed by the court below is warranted as there is nothing to show that the adjudging of the compensation suffer from any infirmity. Admittedly, 140 yielding rubber tress and three yielding coconut trees had been cut and removed to facilitate the drawing of 220 KV electric transmission lines over the property of the claimant. The Corporation has assessed compensation for the trees cut and removed on the basis of annuity return of 10%, which time and again has been found not proper and correct under a series of judicial pronouncements rendered by this Court. Though the decision rendered by this Court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B (2000 (1) KLT 542 (FB)) holding that the annuity return in respect of the loss arising from the cutting and removing of the trees has to be assessed with reference to 5% annuity return stands practically negatived and not a correct principle by the decision rendered by the apex court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha ((2007) 6 SCC 792). I have to take note that in the present case, the revised order had been CRP.618/08 4 passed on the basis of the directions issued by this Court by the remand order, after setting aside the previous order of the court below. The trees were cut and removed at least prior to 2000 and remitting the case again for reassessment of the compensation with reference to the principles laid down in Livisha's case, in my view, is likely to cause much hardship and irreparable injury to both sides. Such a course need be followed only if it is seen that the compensation adjudged by the court is excessive and unreasonable, or suffered from any serious infirmity. What I notice is that the court below has awarded only an enhanced compensation of Rs.81,386/- towards the compensation for the trees cut and removed on refixing such compensation with reference to 5% annuity return. Needless to point out, in the matter of fixing compensation, certain amount of arbitrariness cannot at all be ruled out. It is practically impossible to determine with precision the compensation payable towards the trees cut and removed, whether it be for drawing of the lines or for any other purpose. An yield of a tree differ from one tree to another. Only some average formula alone is possible in fixing CRP.618/08 5 the compensation. In the given facts of the case, I find that the fixation of the enhanced compensation at Rs.81,386/- by the court below cannot be stated to be improper or incorrect. Then the only question that is to be looked into is whether the award of compensation made towards the diminution of land value by the court below calls for any interference. Admittedly, the lines drawn through the property were 220 KV transmission lines. Sufficient clearance of both sides of the line was necessary to avoid any mishap and also for safeguarding the free flow of energy through those lines. When clearance to be provided from such lines is taken note of it has to be held that the claimant will be prevented from making use of substantial portion of her land in the manner she wanted. It is further noticed that the land was used as a rubber plantation, and so much so, it may not be possible for the claimant to make use of it even for any profitable agricultural purpose in the immediate future. True, the claimant can have some sort of cultivation underneath the area covered by the lines, but, the fertility of the land which had been previously rubber plantation should also be taken CRP.618/08 6 into consideration to assess how far it had been injuriously affected by the drawing of the line. The court below has held that 50 cents of land out of one acre ten cents of the property of the claimant had been injuriously affected at least to the extent of 30%. Though the land value of Rs.50,000/- was claimed by the claimant, the court below had fixed the land value only at Rs.4,000/- per cent. Injurious affectation over the land was held to be at 30% and in that view, compensation towards diminution of land value was fixed. A sum of Rs.60,000/- has been awarded towards the diminution of the land value. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the assessment so made and the compensation awarded for injurious affection of the land especially where it is seen that sufficient clearing area was required when a 220 KV lines are drawn over a property. The learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that the interest awarded from the date of cutting till realisation require to be modified as from the date of petition. Corporation has no case that it has paid any interest on the amount already paid from the date of cutting of the trees. So much so, in modification of the order of the CRP.618/08 7 court below with respect to the awarding of interest, there will be an order that the claimant will be entitled to claim interest on the amount at Rs.1,55,835/- paid by the Corporation from the date of cutting of the trees till such payment and on enhanced compensation by the court form the date of petition till date of realisation at the rate of 6% interest per annum. Revision is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp