IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 CRP.No. 625 of 2008() --------------------- OP(EA)No.94/2005 of ADDL.D.C.,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY THE SECRETARY,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT: --------------- RAPHEL,S/O.LONAN,THAZHUPPIL VEETTIL, AROOR VILLAGE,CHERTHALA TALUK. ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVALSEN FOR R1 SRI.P.A.KUNJUMON FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.625 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this 26th day of May, 2010 ORDER Respondent appears through counsel. 2. The State Electricity Board has come up with this revision petition challenging order dated 04-02-2008 of the learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P.(Ele.)No.94 of 2005 awarding Rs.18,000/- by way of additional compensation to the respondent. It is not disputed that Aroor-Kalamassery 110KV line was drawn along property of respondent in survey 14/5 and two yielding coconut trees, one non yielding coconut tree and two other trees which included a yielding mango tree were cut. Based on Ext.B1, detailed valuation statement (DVS) Value Officer assessed compensation payable to the respondent as Rs.2646/-. No amount was awarded towards diminished land value. So far as claim for additional compensation for value of improvements is concerned, learned Additional District Judge was not impressed by the claim made by the respondent and declined the claim. Though no commission was taken out to ascertain the extent of property injuriously affected by the drawal of line, considering the fact that two yielding coconut trees, one non yielding coconut tree and two C.R.P.No.625 of 2008 : 2 : other trees which included a fruit bearing mango tree also were cut, learned Additional District Judge has fixed the area effected by drawal of the line as 3 cents which, being moderate required no inference. 3. So far as land value is concerned, respondent relied on Ext.A1, sale deed of the year 1996 where the value of land is stated as Rs.49,000/- per cent. Learned Additional District Judge observed that there is no acceptable evidence regarding similarity of Ext.A1 property and the petition schedule property and hence value stated in Ext.A1 cannot be accepted. However, taking into account the fact that petition schedule property is in Aroor village (adjoining Ernkulam District) and considering the nearness of the National Highway land value was fixed as Rs.20,000/- per cent. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that land value fixed is without any basis. Respondent has not taken out a commission to assess the land value. Learned Additional District Judge has observed that there is no evidence of similarity of Ext.A1 land with the petition schedule property. Though assessment of compensation for diminished land value shall not be arbitrary, it involves some sort of guess work also. I stated that property is situated in Aroor village and that it is near to the National Highway Ext.A1 gives some idea of the land value in the locality. It is considering these aspects that land value was fixed as Rs.20,000/- per cent. 30% of the land value was taken for the purpose of fixing C.R.P.No.625 of 2008 : 3 : compensation for diminution of land value. On account of drawal of the high tension line respondent is not able to use the land by cultivating permanent crops, constructing building etc. 30% of the land value taken for assessment of compensation cannot be said to be exorbitant requiring interference by this court in revision. It is on that basis that learned Additional District Judge fixed compensation payable for diminished land value as Rs.18,000/-. I do not find reason to interfere with that finding. The interest awarded is not excessive considering the rate of interest payable by nationalized banks for fixed deposit. The revision petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-