IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 591 of 2009(B) --------------------------------- [O.P(ELE).NO.28/2004 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA] .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR TRANSMISSION SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY MR. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------- 1. SOSAMMA THANKACHAN, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O. LATE MR. THANKACHAN, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, THUVARYOOR SOUTH P.O. 2. SANTHI THANKACHAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, D/O. SOSAMMA THANKACHAN, -DO- BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= C.R.P. No. 591 of 2009 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 23rd February, 2010 O R D E R Aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation granted by the Addl. District Court, Pathanamthitta, respondents in O.P. (Ele.) No. 28 of 2004, Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board and Asst. Executive Engineer, Major Transmission Section, Kerala State Electricity Board, Kundara, have come up in revision. 2. It is not in dispute that 220 KV line was drawn through the property of the respondents. The respondents/petitioners have landed property having an extent of 7.5 cents of dry land in Re-Survey No.113/2 of Kadampanadu Village, Adoor Taluk. The Board granted a compensation of Rs.14,649/- for the trees cut and removed from the property. That was stated inadequate. It was also pointed out that no amount towards diminution in land value has been granted. According to the CRP 591/09 2 respondents/petitioners, the land value at the relevant time was Rs.20,000/- per cent. They would say that the entire land is utilized for drawing of the line. It was therefore claimed an additional compensation of Rs.7,20,476/- 3. The Board resisted the petition. It was pointed out that the claim of the respondents that the entire property has been utilized for drawing the line could be accepted. The line was drawn only through a portion of the property and adequate compensation was granted and the petitioners were not entitled to any enhanced amount. 4. It appears that O.P. (Ele.) No.28 of 2004 was filed along with other petitions and evidence was adduced from the side of the petitioners in all those petitions. On analyzing the evidence the court below found that the petitioners in O.P.(Ele.) No.28 of 2004 were entitled to total additional compensation of Rs. 22,110/- with 6% interest from the date of petition. The said enhancement is taken objection to by the Board. 5. The contention of the revision petitioners is that CRP 591/09 3 the yield from the trees cut taken is excessive. According to the petitioners, there is no evidence regarding the entire extent of property affected and objection was also taken to the value of the land adopted by the court below in granting compensation towards diminution in land value. 6. The court below has detailed in its order how the enhanced amount of Rs.5,434.31 was given for trees cut and removed. No exception can be taken to that assessment. 7. Both the contentions have no substance at all. 220 KV line was drawn through the property of the petitioner. It may be true that the entire property may not be affected. For loss in diminution in land value, the price of the land value is taken only as Rs.10,000/- per cent. The line was drawn in 2001. The price of the land taken is reasonable and extent of property taken for land value is also just and proper. The amount granted towards diminution in land value Rs.16,677/- is very modest amount. On going through the order of the court below, it can be seen that the court CRP 591/09 4 below has considered all aspects and had come to the conclusion on the basis of the materials available before it. No grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the revision petition fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mn.