IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P. JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 CRP.No. 243 of 2010() ------------------ OP (ELECTRICITY) NO.310/2004 OF II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM ................................................................... REVISION PETITIONERS / RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 : ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, T.C. SUB DIVISION, NEDUMANGADU. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS / PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. JAGADAMMA PILLAI, AGED 84 YEARS, KARIM PADAKUZHI PUTHEN VEEDU, PAZHAVANARA, KEEZHAROOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, K.S.E BOARD, POWER HOUSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. R1 BY ADV. SRI.D. AJITHKUMAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P JOSEPH,J. --------------------------------------- C.R.P.NO. 243 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010. ORDER This revision is in challenge of order passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.(Ele.) No.310/2004 awarding enhanced compensation to respondent No.1. It is not disputed that yielding and non yielding improvements were removed from the property of respondent No.1 for drawal of 110 KV line. Petitioner awarded Rs.47,373/- as compensation which according to respondent No.1 was megre and accordingly he filed petition against petitioners and respondents No.2. Learned Addition District Judge awarded Rs.1,34,500/- by way of additional compensation with interest but, without specifying the rate of interest. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that amount awarded is excessive and without any basis. No commission was taken out for assessment of C.R.P.NO. 243 OF 2010 2 the compensation. 2. Learned Additional District Judge has awarded compensation on to heads-additional compensation for value of improvements and compensation for diminished land value. So far as additional compensation awarded for value of improvements is concerned, it is no disputed that apart from a few Anjili trees, 122 rubber plants were removed of which 57 were yielding rubber plants in the age group of 8-9 years and the remaining 55, non yielding, in the age group of 5 years. Learned Additional District Judge found that in respect of the yielding rubber plants an enhancement of Rs.1,000/- per plant and in respect of the non yielding rubber plants, enhancement of Rs.500/- per plant is reasonable. It is true that, respondent No.1 did not take out a commission to assess the compensation. But, learned Addl. District Judge has referred to C.R.P.NO. 243 OF 2010 3 Ext.A2, mahazar prepared by the petitioner and based on that, assessed compensation. Though learned counsel for petitioner argued that additional compensation awarded is excessive, I find myself unable to assent to that argument. In considering whether, compensation awarded is excessive, possible yield the trees would have given in future has to be taken into account. The yielding rubber plants which were in the age group of 8-9 years it would have normally given yield for another 12 years. The non yielding rubber plants, aged 5 years would have started giving yield within another 3 or 4 years and continued to give yield for about 12 years. Considering these aspects and also, the normal expenses respondent No.1 would have incurred to bring up the improvements, I am not inclined to think that additional compensation awarded by learned Addl. District Judge is exorbitant so that revisional court is C.R.P.NO. 243 OF 2010 4 required to interfere. 3. So far as compensation for diminished land value is concerned, here again no doubt respondent No.1 did not take out a commission to assess land value or area affected by drawal of lines. Learned Addl. District judge has taken the area affected by drawal of the line as 50 cents. The improvements removed are 122 rubber plants, yielding and non yielding and few non yielding Angili trees. In view of that, assessment of extent of land affected as 50 cents is not unreasonable. So far as the land value is concerned, respondent No.1 in his evidence as PW1 claimed it as Rs.30,000/- per cent. True, no document was produced by respondent No.1. But, considering the area where the land is situated learned Addl. District Judge has fixed the land value at Rs.5,000/- per cent which having regard to the normal land value cannot be said to be C.R.P.NO. 243 OF 2010 5 excessive. The drawal of the high tension line prevented respondent No.1 from planting permanent crops and constructing buildings underneath the lines. It follows that utility of the land is affected and that has diminished the land value. Respondent No.1 is entitled to get compensation for that. Here, considering the injury to which the land is put, 20% of the land value has been taken as bar is for fixing compensation payable for diminished land. Thus, compensation payable for diminished land value came to Rs.50,000/-(50 x 500 x 20/100). It is not excessive. Thus, additional compensation payable to respondent No.1 came to Rs.1,34,500/-. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, which I have stated above the award calls for for no interference. 4. It is seen from the order under challenge that though learned Addl. District Judge has found that respondent No.1 is C.R.P.NO. 243 OF 2010 6 entitled to get interest on the enhanced compensation the rate of interest has not been stated. Tree cutting was in the year 1995. Having regard to the facts and circumstances including rate of interest on fixed deposits prevailing in the meantime, I am inclined to fix the rate of interest at 6% per annum. Resultantly, with the direction that respondent No.1 will get interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from date of cutting till realisation, this revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH,JUDGE. pm