IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 CRP.No. 758 of 2008() ------------------------------- OP(ELE) NO.60/2003 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------------ 1. GOPALAKURUP A., AGED 78 YEARS, S/O CHENAN NAIR, MADAYIL HOUSE, P.O.KARIYATHAMKAVU, SIVAPURAM, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE. 2. SAROJIN AMMA, AGED 69 YEARS, W/O GOPALAKURUP, MADAYIL HOUSE, P.O.KARIYATHAMKAVU, SIVAPURAM, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.SHYAM PADMAN SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.758 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this 30th day of September, 2011 ORDER The State Electricity Board has come up in revision in challenge of an order passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Kozhikode in O.P(Ele).No.60 of 2003. Five coconut trees, two jack trees, one mango tree and a soft wood tree were removed from the property of respondent for drawal of 110Kv line. Petitioner awarded `.24,879/- as compensation for value of improvements, without awarding any compensation for diminished land value. Respondent claimed additional compensation for value of improvements and compensation for diminished land value. Learned Additional District Judge awarded a total sum of `.27,352/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum which is under challenge. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that compensation awarded is excessive and that even if it is assumed that the land affected is acquired, total compensation awarded (including the amount already awarded by the petitioner) is excessive having regard to the land value fixed by the court below. It is also contended by learned counsel that it is C.R.P.No.758 of 2008 -: 2 :- without any basis the land value was assessed by the learned Second Additional District Judge. Learned counsel for respondent supported the order. 3. So far as additional compensation payable for yielding improvements is concerned, it is seen from the order under challenge that learned Additional District Judge has accepted and acted upon Ext.B1, detailed valuation statement prepared by the petitioner regarding the yield, price etc. Only in the matter of annuity in respect of the 5 yielding coconut trees learned Additional District Judge has made a change - instead of 10% taken by the petitioner it was taken as 5% in the light of the decision in Kumba Amma Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board (2000(1) KLT 542). It is also seen that learned Additional District Judge has stated in detail in page 5 of the impugned order how additional compensation of `.19,352/- basing on the annuity at 5% was arrived at. Having gone through the said order and heard counsel on both sides I do not find reason to interfere with the enhancement. 4. What remained is compensation awarded for diminished land value. Though, respondent gave evidence as PW1 and claimed that 20cents of land is affected by the drawal of C.R.P.No.758 of 2008 -: 3 :- the line in the absence of acceptable evidence that was not accepted by the learned Additional District Judge. Having regard to the number of trees involved learned Additional District Judge has taken the land affected as 10cents. I must bear in mind that apart from 5 yielding coconut trees, two jack trees, one mango tree and one soft wood tree were removed. Taking that into account the extent of land affected (10cents) cannot be said to be excessive. 5. Though no documentary evidence was produced by the respondent to prove land value, learned Additional District Judge has taken it as `.4,000/- per cent. 20% of the same is taken as the basis for fixation of compensation and accordingly `.8,000/- is awarded as compensation for diminished land value for 10 cents. Thus the total amount came to `.27,352/-. Interest awarded is only 6% per annum. Having regard to the various aspects of the matter, I am not inclined to think that this Court is required to interfere in exercise of the revisional power under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Civil revision is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-