IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 809 of 2005(I) -------------------------------- [O.P(ELE.)NO.273/1996 OF II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV.SRI.S.SUJIN. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- SKARIA, S/O. CHACKO, PADINJAREKARA HOUSE, CHATHAMATTAMKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.J.MATHAPPAN. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010, ALONG WITH C.R.(P) NO. 1111 OF 2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. Nos. 809 & 1111 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010. ORDER Both the claimant and the respondent before the court below have come up in revision against the order of the IInd Additional District Court, Ernakulam in O.P. Electricity 273 of 1996. 2. In the revision petition filed by the claimant, ie., C.R.P. 1111 of 2005, the grievance is that the compensation granted is inadequate. While the grievance in the other revision petition by the respondent is that the compensation is on the high side. 3. The respondent before the court below utilized the property of the petitioner for drawing a 220 KV line. For that purpose, Electricity Board cut and removed several trees standing in the property of the claimant. The Board awarded a total compensation of CRP809 & 1111/2005. 2 Rs.47,816/-. Feeling that the amount granted was inadequate and insufficient, the claimant approached the District Court. The District Court on an appreciation of the evidence before it granted an additional compensation of Rs.2,75,879/-. 4. According to the respondent Board this is on the high side. The claimant is not entitled to such an enhanced amount. 5. On going through the order of the lower court, the court below has taken into consideration all aspects and based its conclusion on the evidence adduced before the said court. It is in accordance with the data available before it that the court below has adopted the principle for evaluation of the value of the trees cut and removed from the property. 6. The respondent Board who has challenged the enhanced compensation pointed out that the decision relied on by the court below is not good law. But one has to notice CRP809 & 1111/2005. 3 that no compensation for diminution in land value has been granted by the court below, for which the claimant is entitled to. It is well settled that he is entitled to a reasonable sum as compensation for diminution in land value. Since it is not granted, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded for the trees cut and removed is on the high side. Considering the number of trees cut and removed, a large extent of the property must have been affected. No reason is given for declining the relief of compensation for diminution in land value. Moreover the lower court has taken the data given by the Board itself and only a higher yield is taken. There is nothing to show that the court below has erred in any manner in arriving at the enhanced compensation is nor is it in any way vitiated. The compensation now granted is just and reasonable because a high value is given under one head when the claimant is deprived of compensation for another item, which he is entitled to. The order of the court below does not call for CRP809 & 1111/2005. 4 interference. Both the revisions are devoid of merits and they are accordingly dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.