IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 427 of 2008() --------------------- OP(ELE).69/2005 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ PADMANABHAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, OTTATHENGUNKAL, AROOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DT. ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.427 OF 2008 (C) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order dated 22.1.2008 in O.P.(Ele.).No.69 of 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha. The respondent in the above O.P., Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the 'Board' has filed this revision challenging the enhanced compensation awarded by the court below towards the loss and damages caused to the claimant in the O.P. by the drawing of overhead electric lines through his property. Towards the drawing of Kalamassery-Aroor 110 KV electric line over the property of the claimant in Sy.No.424/1 of Aroor Village, a number of trees were cut and removed, and towards compensation thereof, the Board awarded a sum of Rs.7,118/-. Challenging the compensation awarded as inadequate and unreasonable, claimant filed the above O.P. for enhanced CRP.427/08 2 compensation. The Board resisted the claim contending that reasonable and adequate compensation had been paid. 2. The learned District Judge on the basis of the materials produced reassessed the compensation payable to the claimant. It was noticed that the Board had assessed compensation for the trees cut and removed, two yielding coconut trees, fixing annuity return at 10%. Following the guidelines given by this Court in Kumba Amma v. KSEB (2000 (1) KLT 542), assessment of compensation was refixed by the District Judge at 5% annuity return. On the basis of such assessment, compensation payable towards the yielding coconut tress cut and removed was refixed by the learned District Judge. Towards diminution of the land value, the court below fixing the market value of the property at Rs.20,000/- per cent, assessed the compensation holding that two cents of the property out of the six cents through which the lines were drawn had been injuriously affected to the extent of 30%. Compensation so fixed by the court is attacked by the learned counsel for the Board contending that there CRP.427/08 3 was no data before the court as to the extent of area affected by the drawing of the lines nor of the market value of the land through which the lines were drawn. No Commission was taken out by the petitioner is highlighted by the learned counsel for the Board to contend that the compensation awarded by the court below deserve to be interfered with. Perusing the order impugned, it is noticed the claimant had produced a copy of a registered sale deed with respect to a property situated nearby for enabling the court to fix its market value. But there was no evidence to show that the property covered by Ext.A1 was similar to the property of the claimant through which the lines were drawn by the Board. The document A1 produced by the claimant showed a consideration of over Rs.14 lakhs for an area of six cents of land. The court below rightly and correctly discarded that document and then proceeded to refix the market value of the property of the claimant at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent. The claimant did not produce adequate materials to assess the court in fixing the market value. But on that solitary ground, the assessment made by the learned District Judge need not CRP.427/08 4 be interfered with as it is just and reasonable to hold that similar claims based on the drawing of the Kalammassery-Aroor 110 KV line close to the property of the claimants might have come up for consideration before the court earlier as well. Though in the order reference has not been made to any of such claim petitions, having regard to the fact that the assessment of the market value fixed and the compensation provided cannot be considered as excessive and unreasonable, I find no interference is called for in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction vested with this Court. The court below has awarded compensation towards diminution of land value for the lines drawn only to the extent of 30%, that too, to the extent of two cents out of the total six cents possessed by the claimant. There is no dispute that two yielding coconut trees had been cut and removed from the property of the claimant for drawing up the lines, which itself is indicative that the injurious affectation caused by the drawing of the lines extended to not less than two cents out of the six cents. I find there is no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order passed by the court below awarding enhanced compensation CRP.427/08 5 as fixed to the claimant. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp