IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 CRP.No. 135 of 2009() --------------------- OP(ELE)NO.87/2001 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC-II), ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, STANDING COUNSEL, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- E.V. POULOSE, EDAYANAL HOUSE, PAZHAMATTOM.P.O, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.ABEESH JOSE THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2010, ALONG WITH CRP NOS.163/2009 AND 165/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.Nos.135, 163 and 165 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010. ORDER These revision petitions arise from common order passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc-II), Ernakulam in O.P.(Ele.) Nos.87 of 2001, 88 of 2001 and 90 of 2001, respectively. Through the property of respondents 220 KV lines were drawn and for the said purpose various improvements in the said properties were cut and removed . Not satisfied with the amounts awarded by petitioners, respondents filed the petitions in the court of learned Additional District Judge. Learned Additional District Judge allowed additional compensation for value of improvements and also awarded compensation for diminished land value on account of drawal of the line as the properties were injuriously affected. Accordingly compensation was enhanced which is under challenge in these revisions. Learned counsel for petitioner, common in all revisions contends that it is merely based on the valuation statement filed by the respondents that compensation has been enhanced for the trees cut and removed. So far as the compensation awarded for diminished land value is concerned, it is contended that there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate that. Learned counsel therefore requested that the impugned common order may be set aside and the petitions may be dismissed. Learned counsel for respondents contended that so far as enhancement of compensation for value of improvements is concerned, details of tree cutting stated in Exts.R1 to R3, 2 valuation statements prepared by the petitioner has been accepted and it is based on the decision in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542) that respondents filed revised statements adopting 5% annuity which has been accepted by the learned Additional District Judge and accordingly enhanced compensation was awarded for tree cutting. So far as compensation for diminished land value is concerned, it is argued that these properties are situated in a commercially important locality and accordingly centage value was calculated. In two cases petitioner has installed towers making use of three cents each for which 100% of land value was awarded as compensation taking the centage value as Rs.9,000/- and for the rest of the property affected due to drawal of line, 50% of the land value was allowed as compensation taking centage value as Rs.9,000/-. According to the learned counsel there is no reason to interfere. 2. So far as enhancement of compensation for tree cutting is concerned as against 10% annuity adopted by the petitioner, respondents have filed revised statement adopting 5% annuity in the light of the decision in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. In the light of that decision respondents are entitled to get 5% annuity which was granted by the learned Additional District Judge and accordingly additional compensation is awarded for tree cutting. I do not find reason to interfere with that part of the impugned common order. 3 3. So far as compensation awarded for diminished land value is concerned it is seen that no commission was taken out to ascertain extent of land allegedly affected. No other reliable evidence is also adduced concerning the extent of land allegedly affected. There is also no reliable evidence regarding land value. Respondents claimed land value as Rs.20,000/- per cent. Learned Additional District Judge, without any reliable materials has fixed it at Rs.9,000/- per cent. In that regard what is available is only the evidence of petitioner in O.P. (Ele.)No.87 of 2001 as PW1. Respondents did not produce any document to show value of land during the relevant time. No commission was also taken out to conduct a local investigation as to the value of the land during the relevant time. In the circumstances I am not persuaded to think that learned Additional District Judge was correct in awarding compensation for diminished land value on account of drawal of the 220 KV line. As such that part of the common order awarding compensation for diminished land value is to be interfered. But respondents are entitled to establish their claim for compensation on that account. Having regard to the facts and circumstances I am inclined to give respondents an opportunity to establish their claim in that regard. Resultantly these revision petitions are allowed in part to the extent that while confirming enhancement of compensation for tree cutting, the award for compensation for diminished land value is set aside and that matter alone remitted to the court below for decision after giving opportunity to both sides to 4 adduce evidence in that regard. Parties shall appear in the court of learned Additional District Judge on 20.10.2010. Learned District Judge is directed to expedite the proceedings since petitions are of the year 2001. I.A.No.485 of 2009 in C.R.P.No.135 of 2009, I.A.No.611 of 2009 in C.R.P.No.163 of 2009 and I.A.No.617 of 2009 in C.R.P.No.165 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks