IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 CRP.No. 836 of 2006() --------------------- OP(ELE)23/2000 of DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC,KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- SRI.P.V.RAGHAVAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.MANIKKAM AMMA, RES. AT EDAYILAKKAD, UDINOOR VILLAGE, P.O.VALIYAPARAMBA. BY ADV. MR.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.3067/2006 IN C.R.P.NO.836/2009 CLOSED 10/08/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No.836 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 10th August, 2009 ORDER The revision is directed against the order dated 14th February, 2006 in O.P.(Ele.)No.23 of 2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Kasaragod. The above petition was filed by the respondent claiming enhanced compensation under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 42 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 read with Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 towards the damages sustained by the drawing of overhead electric lines through his property by the petitioner, the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). The Board filed objections to the petition contending compensation provided was adequate and reasonable. The learned District Judge after conducting an enquiry and hearing the counsel on both sides with reference to the materials tendered including a commission report prepared by an Advocate Commissioner reassessed the compensation payable and passed the impugned order granting the respondent enhanced compensation of Rs.42,036/-, allowing its realisation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum till date of payment. The Board has filed this revision questioning the correctness of that order contending that it suffers CRP No.836/06 - 2 - from serious infirmity warranting interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 2. Notice being given, the respondent/claimant has entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. After having heard the counsel at length with reference to the order passed by the learned District Judge, I find that all material factors relevant for assessing the compensation payable in accordance with the legal principles applicable have been duly taken note of and the assessment made allowing enhanced compensation of Rs.42,036/- towards the loss sustained by the claimant is proper, valid and correct. It is seen that the valuable trees were cut and removed from the property of the claimant for drawing 220KV high tension electric line through that property. Value of the timber trees cut and removed which included fruit bearing trees, prepared by the Deputy Tahsildar in accordance with the rules, it is seen, was interfered with by the Chief Engineer of the Board and the amount provided was reduced without assigning any reason. The learned District Judge, after appreciating that question, reached the conclusion that valuation statement prepared by the Deputy Tahsildar providing timber value in the compensation payable for the trees cut and removed deserved acceptance. So much so, it was held that the claimant was entitled to CRP No.836/06 - 3 - get such compensation as stated under A1 valuation statement prepared by the Deputy Tahsildar. There is no impropriety or illegality in the order so passed by the learned District Judge. Compensation towards the value of the trees cut and removed was reassessed by the learned District Judge with reference to the legal principles set out in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542(FB). Annuity return fixed by the Board to assess the compensation was found in conflict with the legal principles set out in the above decision and that has led to lesser compensation being awarded by the Board. Following the principle in the above decision, the learned District Judge reassessed the compensation payable towards the trees cut and removed. The impugned order does not reflect the amount awarded thereunder. However, no argument was canvassed before me to show that the sum awarded under that count was excessive and unreasonable. The decision relied by the court below at present can be applied only subject to the modification in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [ (2007) 6 S.C.C. 792] rendered by the apex court. In the present case, having regard to the limited enhanced compensation awarded to the respondent and the principles followed, I find no interference is called for with the order of the learned District Judge. The respondent has claimed compensation towards the diminution of land CRP No.836/06 - 4 - value contending that the property had a market value of Rs.10,000/- per cent. The learned District Judge assessing the market value at Rs.2000/- per cent on the basis of the commission report and fixing 20% towards diminution of land value assessed the compensation payable thereof. Thus, a total sum of Rs.42,036/- allowing its realisation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum till payment was awarded by the learned District Judge as enhanced compensation. Having regard to the percentage fixed towards the diminution of land value, with no challenge as to the extent of land suffered by the drawing of the overhead line, I find there is no merit in the challenge raised by the Board that such land could be used for other useful purposes and fit for cultivation of low level plants and trees. The enhanced compensation awarded by the learned District Judge under the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Revision lacks merit and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE