IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 CRP.No. 877 of 2008() --------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DTD.20/2/2008 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ALAPUZHA IN O.P.(ELECTRICITY)No.54/2005) REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: -------------------------- AUGUSTIN @ JOY, S/O. CHACKO, KAREETHARA VEETTIL, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH SRI.K.VIDYA MANUVILSON SRI.M.R.VIBIN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.877 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this 24th day of May, 2010 ORDER The order dated 20-02-2008 in O.P.(El.) 54 of 2005 of the court of learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha is under challenge in this revision petition at the instance of the State Electricity Board. It is not disputed that yielding trees were cut and removed from the property of respondent in Aroor Village for drawing the Aroor-Kalamassery 110 KV high tension line and petitioner awarded a sum of Rs.10,877/- as compensation for value of improvements. Challenging that award, respondent filed petition in the court below. Petition was opposed by the petitioner contending that the compensation already awarded is reasonable and no further compensation is payable. On the side of respondent there is Exts.A1 to A3 and for the petitioner Ext.B1, the detailed Valuation Statement (DVS) was marked. Exts.C1 and C1(a) are the commission report and sketch. So far as compensation for value of improvements is concerned, it is seen that petitioner has taken annuity factor on the basis of 10% return which was found to be against the decision in Kumba Amma Vs. KSEB (2009(1) KLT 542) and in the light of that C.R.P.No.877 of 2008 : 2 : decision respondent was found entitled to get 5% return taking the appropriate annuity factor. Calculated in that way court below held that respondent is entitled to get Rs.7838/- as additional compensation for the yielding trees cut and removed from the property. The rest of the claim for value of compensation was rejected. 2. In so far diminution in land value is concerned, respondent is claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.49,000/- per cent. Ext.C1 revealed that the property is situated is 200 mtrs. away from N.H.47-Cochin bypass and that there is access to the property of respondent though through a narrow bye-lane. It came out that the property is situated in a commercial area. The sketch filed by the commissioner revealed that line has been drawn diagonally along the north-west corner of the property. As per the report and sketch of the commissioner the lane passed only through a small tract of land. Therefore the court found that only two cents is effected by the drawal of lane. So far as the land value is concerned, respondent relied on Ext.A1, sale deed of the year 1996 whereby 10 cents of property in Sy.No.418/1B in Aroor Village was sold for a consideration of Rs.4,90,000/-. Learned Additional District Judge observed that it is not shown that the said property is situated near to the suit property but, taking cue from the consideration stated in Ext.C1, value of C.R.P.No.877 of 2008 : 3 : petition schedule property was fixed as Rs.20,000/- per cent. For the purpose of fixing compensation for diminution of land value 30% of the land value was taken. Accordingly, Rs.10,000/- was awarded as compensation for diminution in land value. The total additional compensation payable to the respondent was Rs.19,838/-. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that there is no evidence to prove the land value. In the light of Ext.A1, though that document has not been and could not be accepted as such, I am unable to say that the land value (Rs.20,000/- per cent) fixed by the learned Additional District Judge is excessive calling interference by this court. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and considering the extent of land effected I am not inclined to think that compensation awarded is exorbitant calling for interference by the revisional court. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-