IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 CRP.NO. 538 OF 2007() -------------------------------- OPELE.495/2004 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------ SAIDHU KUMARAN NAIR, S/O KRISHNAN KUTTY NARI, ARUNODHAYAM, CHATHAMANGALAM AMSOM, MALAYAMMA DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.538 of 2007 ==================================== Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010 O R D E R Civil Revision Petition is in challenge of order dated 30.01.2006 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Kozhikode in O.P (Ele.) No.495 of 2004 awarding Rs.37,328/- as compensation with interest at the ate of 6% per annum from 24.4.2002 till date of payment/deposit. 2. It is not disputed that a 110 KV Electric line was drawn through the property of petitioner and for the said purpose improvements including yielding coconut trees were cut and removed. Respondent awarded a total sum of Rs.33,900/- as compensation. Aggrieved, petitioner filed O.P(Ele.) No.495 of 2004 in the court below claiming additional compensation. Learned Additional District Judge vide the impugned order found that enhanced compensation payable for value of improvements is Rs.22,269.16, rounded to Rs.22,328/-. So far as the compensation for diminution in land value on account of drawal of high tension electric line is concerned learned Additional District Judge referred to the decision in K.S.E.B v. T.T.P. Kayyu (1996 [1] KLT 432 C.R.P. No.538 of 2007 -: 2 :- (FB) and relied on the evidence of petitioner as P.W1 which according to the learned Judge was not controverted by the respondent. It was found that 15 cents of land was affected by the drawal of the electric line, fixed Rs.5,000/- per cent as land value and awarded compensation on the premise that 20% of the land value can be taken as compensation for diminution in land value. Accordingly Rs.15,000/- was awarded as compensation for diminution in land value for 15 cents. That award is under challenge in this Revision. Learned counsel brought to my attention an unreported decision of this Court dated 5.3.2009 in C.R.P. No.529 of 2007 as per which, as the learned counsel says in respect of same drawal of line, land value was fixed as Rs.12,000/- per cent and 30% of the same was taken for awarding compensation for diminution in land value. Learned counsel for respondent relied on the decision in K.S.E.B v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC) and contended that compensation awarded is reasonable. According to learned counsel decision in C.R.P. No.529 of 2007 cannot be taken into account. 3. Decision relied on by learned counsel for respondent relates to determination of compensation for improvements. So far as the compensation awarded for tress cut and removed, there C.R.P. No.538 of 2007 -: 3 :- is no challenge before me. As seen from the order learned Additional District Judge has relied on the Parks Table to fix compensation for trees cut and removed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find reason to interfere with that part of the order. 4. What remained is compensation payable for diminution in land value. Though learned counsel for petitioner stated that the extent of land affected is not 15 cents, in the absence of better data and considering the nature of trees cut and removed I do not find reason to interfere with the finding that the land affected is 15 cents. Petitioner gave evidence stating that there are Market, School, Post Office, etc., near to the property involved. C.R.P. No.529 of 2007 relates to drawal of 110 KLV line which according to the learned counsel is the same line referred to in the present case. According to learned counsel land value per cent at that place is Rs.25,000/-. But no acceptable evidence in that line is produced. In C.R.P. No.529 of 2007 land value has been fixed as Rs.12,000/- per cent. But it is not clear whether the said land is lying adjacent to the land involved in the present case. Hence land value fixed in that case cannot be adopted in this case. However, in the facts and circumstances of C.R.P. No.538 of 2007 -: 4 :- case Rs.8,000/- can be fixed as land value per cent. 5. So far as compensation payable for diminution in land value is concerned in C.R.P. No.529 of 2009 it has been taken as 30% of the land value per cent which can be adopted in this case. If that be so, compensation payable for diminution in land value is Rs.2,400/- per cent for 15 cents which comes to Rs.36,000/-. What is awarded is Rs.15,000/-. Hence petitioner is entitled to get a further sum of Rs.21,000/- as additional compensation for diminution in land value which will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of cutting of trees till date of payment/deposit. Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part. Over and above the compensation awarded by the court below petitioner is allowed to realise additional compensation of Rs.21,000/- (Rupees Twenty one thousand only) towards diminution in land value payable by the respondent with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of cutting of trees till date of payment/deposit. No costs. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv