IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 CRP.No. 595 of 2008() --------------------- OPELE.281/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/1st RESPONDENT: --------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIRKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER: --------------- 1. VARGHESE GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, GEORGE NILAYAM, KOMALLUR MURI CHUNAKKARA VILLAGE. MAVELIKKARA 2. SHERLY VAREGHESE, W/O.VARGHESE GEORGE, DO.DO. ADV. SRI.A.SHAFEEK FOR R1 & 2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.595 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this 22nd day of September, 2010 ORDER This revision is in challenge of an order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P.(Ele).No.281 of 2002 awarding enhanced compensation for drawal of 220kv line through the property of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Special Tahsildar (LA) has assessed compensation payable for value of improvements and not being satisfied, respondent Nos.1 and filed petition before the learned Additional District Judge. Learned Additional District Judge awarded a total sum of 1,12,337/- as additional compensation with interest @9% from the date of cutting. That order is under challenge in this revision at the instance of respondent No.1 in the court below. Learned counsel for petitioner states that additional compensation awarded is excessive. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 supported the order. 2. So far as value of improvement is concerned, it is seen that data regarding number of trees, age, yield etc, given by the Special Tahsildar (LA) on behalf of petitioner has been accepted by the learned Additional District Judge. The change made by the C.R.P.No.595 of 2008 : 2 : learned Additional District Judge is that while respondent No.2 has taken 10% as annuity, learned Additional District Judge has taken it as 5% relying on the decision of this court in Kumba Amma Vs. KSEB (2000(1) KLT 542) and based on that, fixed the compensation payable for value of improvements at Rs.1,42,674/-. Less the amount already paid, the additional compensation payable is fixed as Rs.67,337/-. Though, it is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that amount awarded is excessive I do not find reason to interfere as I stated that the only change made by learned Additional District Judge is in the annuity factor relying on the decision of this court. 3. What remained is compensation awarded for diminished land value. It cannot be disputed that on account of drawal high tension line property has been injuriously. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to get compensation for diminished land value. Relying on Exts.C1 and C1(a), extent of land affected is fixed as 30 cents. To prove the land value respondent Nos.1 and 2 produced Ext.A10, copy of the award in L.A.R.No.40 of 1993 and connected cases relating to the property situated in the locality. The Advocate Commissioner has reported in Ext.C1 that important institutions are situated within a distance of 3kms from the petition schedule property. Commissioner also stated after local C.R.P.No.595 of 2008 : 3 : investigation that land value is between Rs.15,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per cent but, respondent Nos.1 and 2 stated in the petition land value as more than Rs.10,000/- per cent. Taking that also into account, learned Additional District Judge has fixed land value as Rs.5,000/- per cent which is not excessive. 30% of the said amount is taken as basis for fixation of diminished land value. I must also take into account that though a tower was installed in the property (as learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 say towards the middle of the property rendering the entire property useless) no separate compensation has been awarded for land affected by the installation of tower. Compensation awarded for diminished land value in the circumstance cannot be said to be exorbitant. 4. What remained is whether interest awarded @9% is excessive and interest should have been allowed from the date of cutting. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that rate of interest is excessive and it should have been from the date of petition. I am afraid, having regard to the circumstances stated I am unable to give my assent to that contention. Reason is that though 9% interest may appear to be excessive at the first blush, I must take into account the fact that a tower has been constructed in the property but no compensation has been awarded for that. Bearing these aspects in mind I am not inclined to think that rate of C.R.P.No.595 of 2008 : 4 : interest awarded is excessive. Compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge was payable to the petitioner on the date of tree cutting. Hence cause of action for respondent Nos.1 and 2 arose on the date of tree cutting. If that be so, for amount withheld or for delayed payment respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to get damages in the form of interest. Hence award of interest from the date of tree cutting is not illegal. Revision petition fails. It is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-