IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 CRP.No. 191 of 2008() --------------------- OP(ELE).30/2004 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------- V.C.ISMAIL, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.V.C.ABHUBACKER, ASST.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR GRADE I, SUN - 14/201, MUDUPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No. 191 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this 22nd day of June, 2010 ORDER This revision is at the instance of Kerala State Electricity Board challenging enhanced compensation (Rs.79,716/-) with interest and cost awarded by the learned Additional District Judge- II, Kozhikode. 2. It is not disputed that for the purpose of drawal of 110kv DC line improvements were cut and removed from the property of respondent. Petitioner awarded a total sum of Rs.68,165/- by way of compensation which according to the respondent was low. Ext.A1 is the Detailed Valuation Statement (DVS). It is seen from the order under challenge that details of the trees cut, yielding and other matters stated in Ext.A1 has been accepted by the learned Additional District Judge in the absence of better evidence. Learned Additional District Judge instead of taking 10% as annuity for value of improvements adopted 5% as annuity relying on the decision in Kumba Amma Vs. K.S.E.B (2000(1) KLT 542). In so far as that finding is based on binding decision of this court and other details given in Ext.A1, DVS having been accepted, petitioner has no reason to complain about the sum C.R.P.No.191 of 2008 : 2 : of Rs. 68,165/- awarded by way of enhanced compensation for value of improvements. 3. What remained is compensation payable for diminished land value. The property it is not disputed is situated near Meppayyur town. Though there was no acceptable evidence produced by the respondent except his version as PW1, learned Additional District Judge has fixed land value as Rs.4,000/- per cent. Having regard to the soaring land value and considering importance of the locality, I did not find reason to interfere with the land value fixed by the learned Additional District Judge. 4. It has come in evidence that a tower was installed by the petitioner in the property of respondent the extent of which is taken as 4 cents. It is seen that though the entire area occupied by the tower is affected and rendered useless learned Additional District Judge has taken only 70% of the land value for fixing compensation for diminution in land value for the said 4 cents. I do not find reason to interfere. 5. So far as remaining extent of land is concerned, taking into account extent of improvements the land affected has been fixed as 25 cents. Having regard to the fact that there were 43 coconut trees, arecanut trees and pepper vines, extent of 25 cents is not excessive. For the said extent compensation is awarded at C.R.P.No.191 of 2008 : 3 : the rate of 20% of the land value and thus total amount payable to the respondent came to Rs.79,716/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of cutting of trees. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am not inclined to think that the amount awarded is exorbitant or, is illegal in any manner requiring interference. Resultantly the revision petition fails and it is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-