IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 680 of 2005() --------------------- OP(ELE).248/1996 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONERS: ------------------------------ 1. KURIAKOSE, SON OF SKARIA, AGED 46, THUDUMMEL HOUSE, PINDIMANA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 2. ELDOS, SON OF SKARIA, AGED 44, -DO- -DO-. 3. GEORGE, SON OF SKARIA, AGED 40, -DO- -DO-. 4. MARY, D/O. SKARIA, AGED 58, -DO- -DO-. 5. SARAMMA, D/O. SKARIA, AGED 55, -DO- -DO-. 6. LEELA, D/O. SKARIA, AGED 48, -DO- -DO-. 7. ANNAKUTTY, WIFE OF SKARIA, AGED 82, -DO- -DO-. (THE 1ST PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED TO THE PETITIONERS 2 TO 7 AS THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER) BY ADV. SRI.P.M.KURUVILLA SRI.SAJI THOMAS SRI.A.BIJU MANOHAR SRI.P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT: ------------------------ THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------------------------ C.R.P No. 680 of 2005 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners/claimants in O.P (Ele) 248/1996 on the file of the IInd Additional District Court Ernakulam is the revision petitioners The court below by the impugned order under challenge enhanced the compensation and re-fixed it at Rs. 65,614/- as against Rs. 22,385/- already awarded by the respondent/Kerala State Electricity Board 2. The trees belonging to the revision petitioners were cut down and removed for the purpose of drawing electric line . According to the revision petitioners the compensation assessed by the officials of the respondent are not adequate and reasonable. The court below appreciated the oral evidence of PWs1 and 2 and marked Exts A1 to A3 , C1 and C2. The court below re-fixed the value of yielding trees on the basis of the Commission report and applied 5% annuity and awarded compensation at Rs.48,814/- The compensation awarded is reasonable and adequate, therefore no modification is necessary. 3. The Commissioner who inspected the property reported that the prevailing market value of the property is Rs. 8,000/- per Cent. The court below for valid reasons did not relied on Ext A1 and A2 sale deeds produced by the revision petitioners/claimants in support of their claim for enhancement in diminution of land value. At the same time the court C.R.P No. 680 of 2005 -2- below held that considering the trend of increasing value of land as evidenced by Exts A1 and A2, the value of property can be fixed at Rs. 4,000/- per Cent. The Commissioner on a mere site inspection assessed the market value at Rs. 8,000/- per Cent. The Commissioner's report cannot be relied on, since the same was not prepared on the basis of any datas or documents and at the same time the fixation of value at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per Cent by the court below was not adequate and reasonable in the given circumstances . Considering the value of Exts. A1 property and A2 property and the datas in Ext.C1 report, I am of the view that the value of the property can be fixed at Rs. 6,000/- per Cent. The order passed by the court below is modified accordingly. In the result, this C.R.P is partly allowed The order is modified as stated above. The claimants shall file a revised statement before the court below claiming compensation as modified by this Court. There will be no order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE es