IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 2133 of 2000(I) ----------------------- O.P. (ELECTRICITY) NO.104/1996 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, VYDHYUDHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. BY ADV. MR.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- K. INDIRA, KUTTUMA PALLIVELIYIL, MARUTHOORVATTAM P.O., THANNEERMUKKOM, VADAKKU VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- C.R.P No.2133 OF 2000 -------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February 2010 ORDER Revision is directed against the order dated 14/10/1998 in O.P(Ele.) No. 104/1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha. Respondent in the revision filed the above O.P seeking enhanced compensation for the trees cut and removed and also damages caused by drawing of overhead lines through her property having an extent of 54 cents situate in Thanneermukkam North village. The revision petitioner hereinafter referred to as the Board had drawn 110 KV electric line through the property of the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the claimant. To facilitate the drawing of such line, 22 coconut trees, 11 of them yielding, and the rest, saplings, were cut down. Towards compensation for the loss suffered by the claimant, the Board awarded compensation of Rs.31,955/- Challenging the compensation as inadequate and unreasonable the claimant preferred the above application. The Board resisted the claim contending that adequate and reasonable compensation had been assessed and paid. In the enquiry over the claim petition, the claimant was examined as PW1 and a copy of a registered sale deed Ext.A1 was also exhibited. An advocate commissioner after conducting a local inspection filed Ext.C1 C.R.P No.2133 OF 2000 Page numbers report, Ext.C2 mahazar and Ext.C3 plan. The learned District Judge after hearing both sides passed the impugned order awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.90,549/- to the claimant directing the Board to pay such sum with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation. A time limit of three months was fixed for such payment failing which the claimant was allowed to realise that amount with 12% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Propriety and correctness of the order awarding enhanced compensation as indicated above is challenged in the revision. 2. Notice issued to the respondent remaining unserved despite taking repeated steps the petitioner/Board was directed to take substituted service by publication. Even after such publication, respondent has not entered appearance. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/Board. The main challenge canvassed in the revision is against that part of the order of the court below awarding compensation to the extent of 40% of the centage value fixed towards the diminution of the land value suffered by the petitioner on account of the drawing of overhead line. The amount fixed as the value of the property and also the percentage assessed for such compensation is incorrect and in fact excessive and unreasonable is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/Board. A C.R.P No.2133 OF 2000 Page numbers feeble challenge was also raised against the enhanced compensation awarded towards the trees cut and removed from the property of the claimant. Reassessing the compensation, that too only in respect of the yield derived from the yielding coconut trees alone following the parameters and guidelines given by this court, the court below has found that the actual compensation payable thereof was Rs.43,549/-. On such assessment it was found that the claimant was entitled to Rs.18,549/- as enhanced compensation. I do not find any merit in the challenge raised against the reassessment of the compensation to be paid for the yielding trees with reference to its yield as adjudged and determined by the learned District Judge. So far as the determination of the compensation for the diminution of the land value, it is noticed, the court below has entered its conclusions and findings on the basis of materials produced in the case. Ext.A1 copy of the registered sale deed produced by the claimant showed the centage value at Rs.14,000/-. There was also the evidence of the claimant as PW1 and report of the advocate commissioner. No counter evidence whatsoever was produced by the Board to impeach the correctness of the centage value of her property, canvassed by the claimant. Then the only question is how far and to what extent her property suffered diminution of land value and what was the area in the property affected by the C.R.P No.2133 OF 2000 Page numbers drawing of overhead line. On the basis of the commission report it has been found that approximately 18 cents of her property to the extent of 40% had been affected by the drawing of overhead line. On that basis, the learned District Judge, fixing the centage value of the property at Rs.10,000/- assessed compensation towards diminution of the land value. Compensation so assessed is Rs.72,000/-. In similar cases diminution of land value is fixed only at 20%, 30% etc, is the argument raised by the learned counsel for the Board to contend that 40% taken by the court below in respect of the affected area of 18 cents out of 54 cents of property belonging to the claimant is excessive and unreasonable. I cannot accept the submission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction on a mere plea or argument so raised as it is not proper and appropriate for this court to interfere with a finding on facts based on materials entered by an inferior court. At any rate there is no jurisdictional infirmity in the order passed by the court below in the assessment of the compensation towards diminution of land value. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv