IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 108 of 2008() -------------------------------- OP(ELE).88/2004 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KSEB 220 KV SUB STATION COMPOUND, KANJIKODE PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. MR. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SKARIA, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE CHERUVUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHUNANGAD P.O. OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. *2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (LA), KSEB MALAPPURAM. *(DELETED) * THE NAME OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER, VIDE ORDER DATED 27/03/2009 IN I.A.812/2009 IN CRP.108/2008. R1 BY ADV. MR.K.ABDUL JAWAD, MR.U.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- C.R.P No.108 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the day of February 2010 ORDER Respondents in O.P(Ele.) No. 88 of 2004 have filed this revision challenging the enhanced compensation awarded to the claimant in the O.P towards the damages caused by the trees cut and removed and also diminution of land value by the drawing of overhead lines through the property of the claimant. KSEB, hereinafter referred to as Board, for the purpose of drawing 110KV electric line, cut and removed 11 coconut trees which included 5 yielding trees, 30 aracnut trees of which 13 were yielding, 10 peper-vines of which 3 were yielding and 7 mango trees from the property of the claimant. Towards the trees cut and removed, the Board assessed and paid compensation of Rs.23885/- to the claimant. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded and claiming enhanced compensation, claimant filed the above O.P. The Board resisted that application contending that just and reasonable compensation had been paid to the claimant. In the enquiry over the claim, claimant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 were exhibited on her side. For the Board, Ext.B1, copy of detailed valuation statement which was relied for assessing the compensation was exhibited. An advocate commissioner, deputed by the court, after conducting local C.R.P No.108 OF 2008 Page numbers inspection filed Ext.C1 report. District Judge after examining the materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides, reassessed the compensation payable and awarded a sum of Rs.24,382/- as enhanced compensation directing the Board to pay such sum with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. Challenging the compensation awarded as excessive, the Board has filed this revision. 2. I heard the counsel. Compensation awarded by the court below is excessive and unreasonable and the claimant has not produced any worthmentioning material to sustain her claim for compensation is the submission of the learned counsel for the Board impeaching the correctness of the order passed by the court below. Perusing the order, I find that overhead electric lines were drawn to facilitate the drawing of 110KV line through the property of the claimant having an extent of 11.5 cents. The number of trees cut and removed to facilitate the drawing of the line clearly demonstrate that it was an agricultural land. The entire area, it is evident from the number of trees, had been profitably made use of by the claimant. 11 coconut trees, 7 mango trees and 30 aracnut trees apart from other trees were cut and removed. It has also come out from evidence that 6 coconut trees were yielding and the others were aged about 7 years which indicate that such trees would have also given yield within a short C.R.P No.108 OF 2008 Page numbers time. It is also to be noticed that the overhead line drawn over the property was for the purpose of drawing 110KV line indicating that sufficient clearance on both sides required to be provided to avoid any mishap and also for free flow of energy without any obstruction whatsoever. Taking the above facts and circumstances presented in the case, the enhanced compensation awarded by the court below has to be appreciated. Admittedly the Board has assessed the compensation at 10% annuity per return which has been found inadequate and not correct by the judicial pronouncements of this court. True, the decision in Kumba Amma's case directing assessment of compensation for cutting and removing of trees @ 5% annuity per return has not been approved by the apex court in Levisha's case. Still where the land involved is a small plot the number of trees cut and removed also limited the relevant factors highlighted in Levisha's case as to the situs of the land, proximity of the public institutions, importance of the locality etc. cannot be given much significance. The court below has adopted 5% annuity per return for reassessing the compensation payable to the claimant for the cutting and removing of the trees. Taking note of the number of trees and also that most of them were yielding, I find that no interference with the enhanced compensation awarded on that ground by the court is called for. The only question then C.R.P No.108 OF 2008 Page numbers emerging for consideration is with respect to compensation awarded towards the diminution of land value. On the basis of the commission report and also the evidence of PW1, the court has found that 110KV electric line drawn through the property has injuriously affected 10 cents out of 11.5 cents of the claimant's land to the extent of 20%. Land value has been fixed @ Rs.2,500/- per cent on the materials placed. No counter evidence was let in by the court to show the land value fixed, the extent of land affected or the percentage of such affectation determined etc were not proper and correct. When that be so, the compensation awarded, ie, a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards diminution of land value also does not call for any interference or modification. Suffix to state that no interference with the order passed by the court below emerge for consideration invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this court. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE