IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2010 / 26TH ASWINA 1932 CRP.No. 32 of 2008() -------------------- OP(ELE.)20/2005 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, STANDING COUNSEL FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- M.A.VASU, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O AYYAPPAN, MATTEL, PERUMPADAPPU, PALLURUTHY VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2010, ALONG WITH CRP NOS. 33/2008,39/2008 & 46/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.Nos.32, 33, 39 & 46 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010. ORDER These revisions arise from the common order passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Ernakulam in O.P.(Ele.) Nos.20 of 2005, 21 of 2005, 22 of 2005 and 27 of 2005, respectively allowing enhanced compensation for value of improvements and compensation for diminished land value on account of drawal of the 110 KV line. The State Electricity Board being aggrieved by the common order to the extent it concerned these cases has come up in revision invoking the power of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). 2. It is not disputed that 110 KV line was drawn though properties of respondents, involved in these cases and lying contiguous. Petitioner prepared detailed valuation statements as regards improvements cut and removed from the said properties and awarded compensation based on the datas contained in the detailed valuation statements. No amount was awarded as compensation for diminished land value. Respondents claimed additional compensation for value of improvements and compensation for diminished land value. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that additional compensation awarded for value of improvements is excessive. According to the learned counsel, court below went wrong in awarding compensation for diminished land value and at any rate the CRP Nos.32, 33, 39 & 46/2008 2 amount awarded is excessive. 3. So far as additional compensation awarded for value of improvements is concerned, Exts.B2, B3, B4 and A4 are the detailed valuation statements concerning the cases referred to above. It is seen that in O.P.(Ele.) No.20 of 2005 Rs.6,268/- was awarded as compensation for value of improvements while in O.P.(Ele.) No.21 of 2005 the sum awarded on that count is Rs.1,188/-. In O.P.(Ele.) No.22 of 2005 compensation awarded for value of improvements is Rs.4,459/-. 4. So far as the datas regarding improvements are concerned, learned Additional District Judge has not accepted the case of petitioner and instead, has gone by the detailed valuation statement referred to above and accepted the same. But, as against 10% annuity taken by the petitioner, learned Additional District Judge has accepted 5% annuity based on the decision of this Court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542) and on that basis respondents filed revised valuation statements. That statements are accepted and accordingly enhanced compensation was awarded for value of improvements. What is awarded as enhanced compensation for value of improvements in O.P.(Ele.) No.20 of 2005 is Rs.4,544/- while in O.P.(Ele.) No.21 of 2005 it is Rs.1,188/-. In O.P.(Ele.) No.22 of 2005 enhanced compensation awarded for value of improvements is Rs.3,933/- and in O.P.(Ele.) No.27 of 2005 it is Rs.2,506/-. So far as the amount awarded on that count is concerned I stated that the only change that learned Additional District Judge had made is CRP Nos.32, 33, 39 & 46/2008 3 in the annuity factor which was taken as 5% based on the decision of this Court referred supra. There is nothing illegal in learned Additional District Judge accepting 5% as the annuity factor. Additional compensation awarded for value of improvements is legal and proper. 5. What remained is whether award of compensation for dimished land value is correct. On account of drawal of high tension line respondents are not able to cultivate permanent crops or construct buildings in the clearance area. Thus the land value has been diminished. Respondent in C.R.P.No.32 of 2008 (petitioner in O.P.(Ele.) 20 of 2005) gave evidence as PW1 and testified to the case of respondents. These properties are lying contiguous. Evidence on record shows that properties are situated in Palluruthy Village within Kochi Corporation. Ext.C1 is the report and Ext.C1(a) series are the plans prepared by the Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of a Surveyor. PW1 stated that the land is situated in a commercially and residentially important area and the Advocate Commissioner also has stated so. Advocate Commissioner has reported about the importance of the locality. Respondents produced Ext.A1, sale deed to which PW1 is a party. He has given evidence regarding that transaction. That transaction was on 20.09.1995. 6.150 cents was sold for a total sum of Rs.4,05,900, ie. Rs.66,000/- per cent. Advocate Commissioner in Ext.C1, in paragraph No.7 has reported that petition schedule properties are situated hardly 250 to 600 metres away from Ext.A1 property. He has also reported that value of petition schedule properties in the year 2001 was CRP Nos.32, 33, 39 & 46/2008 4 something not less than Rupees one lakh per cent. Learned Additional District Judge has referred to the decision in Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot v. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib [(2002) 3 SCC 688] to hold that appreciation of land value at the rate of 10% for every year from the base year is not excessive and in that view fixed land value as Rs.70,000/- per cent during the relevant time. In all the cases the basis for fixing compensation for diminished land value has been taken by learned Additional District Judge as 35% of the land value. In the light of Ext.A1 and the importance of the property as revealed from the evidence of PW1 and Ext.C1 I do not find reason to interfere with that finding of learned Additional District Judge. 6. So far as the extent of land affected on account of drawal of line is concerned, it is seen that the Advocate Commissioner has assessed that with the assistance of Surveyor. In O.P.(Ele.) No.20 of 2005 Ext.C1(b) is the plan prepared by the Surveyor which states total extent of land as 6.850 cents and the affected area as 6.634 cents. Accordingly in O.P.(Ele.) No.20 of 2005 compensation payable for diminished land value is assessed as Rs.1,62,533/- and together with Rs.4,544/- (enhanced compensation for value of improvements) compensation payable came to Rs.1,67,077/- . In O.P.(Ele.) No.21 of 2005 Ext.C1(c) is the plan prepared by the Surveyor which shows total extent of land as 7 cents and the affected area as 6.900 cents. Accordingly in O.P.(Ele.) No.21 of 2005 compensation payable for diminished land value is assessed as Rs.1,69,050/- and together with Rs.1,188/- (enhanced CRP Nos.32, 33, 39 & 46/2008 5 compensation for value of improvements) compensation payable in that case is Rs.1,70,238/-. In O.P.(Ele.) No.22 of 2005 Ext.C1(d) is the plan prepared by the Surveyor which shows total extent of land as 7.560 cents and the affected area as 5.036 cents. Accordingly in O.P.(Ele.) No.22 of 2005 compensation payable for diminished land value is assessed as Rs.1,23,382/- and together with Rs.3,933/- (enhanced compensation for value of improvements) compensation payable in that case is Rs.1,27,315/-. In O.P.(Ele.) No.27 of 2005 Ext.C1(i) is the plan prepared by the Surveyor which shows total extent of land as four cents and the affected area as 2.900 cents. Accordingly in O.P. (Ele.) No.27 of 2005 compensation payable for diminished land value is assessed as Rs.71,050/- and together with Rs.2,506/- (enhanced compensation for value of improvements) compensation payable in that case is Rs.73,556/-. Learned Additional District Judge has awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 05.11.2000 till realisation and cost. 7. Though learned counsel for petitioner contended that land value fixed by learned Additional District Judge is excessive, in the light of Ext.A1 as well as the importance of the property commercially and residentially as reported by the Advocate Commissioner in Ext.C1 and deposed by PW1 and in the light of Ext.A1 which shows the land value for the property situated at a maximum distance of 600 metres from the petition schedule properties I am not inclined to accept that contention of learned counsel. Giving appreciation for the land value from the base year is also based on the decision of the Supreme CRP Nos.32, 33, 39 & 46/2008 6 Court which cannot be said to be illegal. Compensation awarded is not exorbitant so as to call for interference. I do not find reason to interfere with the common order under challenge. Resultantly these revisions are dismissed. Parties shall bear their cost in these revisions. I.A.No.428 of 2009 in C.R.P.No.39 of 2008 and I.A.No.422 of 2009 in C.R.P.No.46 of 2008 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks