IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 71 of 2007() ----------------------------- OP(ELE).138/2000 of DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE .( CORRECTED AS DISTRICT COURT,KASARGOD AS PER ORDER DTD. 25.2.2011 IN IA. NO.417/2011 IN CRP.71/2007 .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT --------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER --------------------------- SRI.A.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. K.V.KUNHIRAMAN OLAVARA MUNDYA DEVASWAM IN OLAVARA SOUTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDRUG TALUK. R1 BY ADVS. MR.M.V.AMARESAN, MR.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- C.R.P No.71 OF 2007 -------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February 2010 ORDER Revision is directed against the order dated 07/07/2006 in O.P(Ele.) No.138 of 2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Kasaragod awarding enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.28,358/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the order till realisationto the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the claimant. The respondent in the O.P, K.S.E.B, hereinafter referred to as the Board cut and removed a number of yielding and nonyielding trees from the property of the claimant for the purpose of drawing a 220 KV high tension electric line. Assessing the compensation due towards the loss sustained by the claimant, a sum of Rs.15,046/- was determined and paid to the claimant. Dissatisfied with the award, the claimant filed the above petition, O.P(ele.) No.138 of 2000 under section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 42 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 r/w Section 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. Board resisted that application contending that the compensation paid was just and reasonable. On the materials tendered in the petition, the learned District Judge reassessed the compensation and awarded the sum as sated above to the claimant. Revision is filed impeaching the propriety and correctness of the order so passed awarding enhanced compensation. C.R.P No.71 OF 2007 Page numbers 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The enhanced compensation awarded is impeached by the counsel for the Board as excessive, unreasonable and not supported by any material tendered before the court below. It is contended that no worthmentioning evidence was let in, not even an assessment by an advocate commissioner and furnishing a report supplying relevant factors to redetermine the compensation. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant contended that the claim has been allowed only in respect of the trees cut and removed which included 7 yielding coconut trees aged 15 years and also one aracnut tree apart from several other nonyielding trees also. Number of yielding trees cut and removed are substantial and it is submitted, the enhanced compensation was awarded on refixing the sum adopting 5% annuity return in accordance with the decision rendered by the court in “Kumba Amma v Kearala State Electricity Board” 2000(1) KLT 542). The Board has admittedly assessed the compensation payable adopting 10% annuity return which has been found to be incorrect by this court in a series of judicial pronouncements. The decision of this court in Kumba Amma's case, the principle to be adopted in determination of compensation at 5% annuity return, has now been held to be not correct in Levisha's case by the apex court. Still it has to be considered whether in exercise of the C.R.P No.71 OF 2007 Page numbers revisional jurisdiction, the assessment made by the court below warrant any interference. In the present case, the trees had been cut and removed for the purpose of drawing a 220 KV electric lines through the property of the claimant. Needless to point out that in drawing of 220 KV electric line, sufficient clearing area on both sides have to be provided to avoid any mishap and for free flow of energy. It also indicates that not only high grown trees coming under the line alone required to be cut and removed but also no such tree could be allowed to be grown underneath the clearing area as well. The claimant in the present case has not been awarded any sum for injurious affection of his land by the drawing of the line has also to be noted. The question whether he has claimed it or not is irrelevant when examining the enhanced compensation awarded by the court with respect to the trees cut and removed from his property. The impugned order shows that the enhanced compensation was determined adopting 5% annuity return instead of 10% annuity return taken by the Board. In Levisha's case, the apex court has held that the situs of the land, importance of the locality, its proximity with public offices etc. also require to be taken note in determining the compensation payable, but, where the land involved is a small tract and a number of trees cut and removed as only minimal, it may not be possible to apply the above principles for adjudging the C.R.P No.71 OF 2007 Page numbers compensation. So much so, I find that no reconsideration over the refixation of the compensation is called for in the revision. No circumstances whatsoever has been brought to my notice that the compensation awarded by the learned District Judge is excessive and unreasonable. On the other hand, it appears that the enhanced compensation awarded is only just and reasonable when it is viewed in the backdrop that 220 KV electric line had been drawn through the property of the claimant. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv