IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 CRP.No. 289 of 2008() --------------------- OP(ELE.)227/2004 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT. ---------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- DEVASYA MALIYEKKAL, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, MANILYEKKAL VEETTIL, VARODE DESOM, OTTAPPALAM VILLAGE,OTTAPPALAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.289 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2011. ORDER This Civil Revision is in challenge of order passed by learned II Additional District Judge, Palakkad in O.P.(Ele.) No.227 of 2004 awarding `15,932/- as additional compensation for value of trees cut and removed and `5,400/- as compensation for diminished land value. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the award is excessive. 2. It is not disputed that 16 coconut trees were cut and removed from the property of respondent. According to the petitioner, of the 16 only seven were yielding. Respondent produced Ext.A1, copy of the mahazar and gave evidence as PW1. Petitioner produced Ext.B1, detailed valuation statement. Respondent claimed that the coconut trees were yielding. 3. So far as the coconut trees are concerned it is seen from the impugned order that learned Additional District Judge accepted only eight coconut trees as yielding at the relevant time. Accepting the details given in Ext.B1, compensation was fixed for those eight yielding coconut trees as seen from page 7 of the impugned order. Learned Additional District Judge has given details of the yielding coconut trees with reference to its age, possible yield and the compensation payable. So far as non-yielding coconut saplings are concerned, it is seen that for four coconut saplings aged three years, CRP No.289/2008 2 compensation was fixed at the rate of `25/- each, thus compensation payable came to `100/-. Learned Additional District Judge also held that in view of the decision in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542) annuity should be taken as 5% instead of 10% adopted by the petitioner. Accordingly additional compensation payable for value of improvements was fixed. 4. Next contention is regarding compensation awarded for diminished land value on account of drawal of electric line. Drawal of 110 KV electric line would diminish the land value since respondent is not able to construct building and cultivate permanent crops. Though there was no documentary evidence produced by the respondent to show the value of land, learned Additional District Judge fixed `2,000/- per cent which having regard to the market value of land during the relevant time cannot be said to be excessive. I must also bear in mind that loss suffered on account of drawal of line was taken as only 15% of the land value (ie.`300/- per cent). Petitioner had constructed a tower in the property of respondent occupying 1.5 cents which cannot be used for any purpose. Learned Additional District Judge found that respondent is entitled to get 75% of the land value and accordingly, `2,250/- was awarded as compensation for diminished land value in respect of the 1.5 cents occupied by the tower. For the rest of the land affected – 10.5 cents - compensation was assessed at the rate of `300/- which came to `3,150/-. Thus compensation for diminished land value came to `5,400/-. CRP No.289/2008 3 5. On various amounts payable learned Additional District Judge has granted 9% interest per annum which in view of current rate of interest I do not find reason to interfere. The order under challenge requires no interference at the instance of petitioner. Civil revision is dismissed. No cost. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks