IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1126 of 2007() ---------------------- OP ELE.244/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------------------ ANNAMMA ALEXANDER, KOTTARATHIL PARAMBU, CHERUTHANA P.O., ANARI. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1126 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008 ORDER This civil revision petition is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, Mavellikara, in OP (Ele) 244/02 whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.17,500/- with 6% interest. 2. A perusal of the award would show that the court has considered the matter only in the proper perspective. The court found that the claim of the claimant that the property will fetch Rs. 25,000/- per cent, is not proved. Having found that it is only a paddy field, taken into consideration the totality and awarded only Rs.2,500/- per cent. The court also found that on account of drawing of a line, it may not be possible for the petitioner to grow tall yielding trees or to construct buildings under the line. It is true that this property is characterised as a paddy filed. Even if it is paddy cultivation, when a tower is erected it may not be possible to cultivate anything under the tower. The court held that “though it was mentioned in Ext.A1 notice and Ext.A3 mahazar that the paddy was C.R.P. NO.1126/07 2 removed for an extent of 750 meter sq. it was not necessary that the tower must be covered the entire area. But, considering the nature of the line drawn and also the area that was cleared for establishing the tower, I think that 10 cents can be taken as the area affected by the tower and that can be taken as the land affected for the purpose of assessing compensation for diminution in land value and loss of utility of land.” The court found that 70% is the diminution in the land value, fixing the amount at the rate of Rs.2,500/- for 10 cents, awarded a compensation of Rs.17,500/-. By any stretch of imagination it cannot be said to be on the higher side. Therefore, there is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the award passed by the court below. The civil revision petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.1126/07 3