IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 CRP.No. 593 of 2009() ------------------------------- OP(E.A).NO. 131/2005 of ADDL.MACT/ ADDL.DISTRICT COURT , ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, RPRESENTD BY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------- SARADAMMA, D/O. KAMALAKSHY AMMA, KANDACHATTIL, THYKKATTUSSERY. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.593 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of September, 2011 ORDER This petition is filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board challenging enhanced compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P(Ele).No.131 of 2005. 110Kv line was drawn through the property of respondent for which petitioner paid compensation of `.11,593/-. Respondent claimed additional compensation on various heads. 2. So far as the yielding improvements are concerned, learned Additional District Judge has accepted the statement of petitioner as to the yield and price of produces. Learned Additional District Judge accepted annuity as 5% in the light of the decision in Kumba Amma Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board (2000(1) KLT 542) as against 10% adopted by the petitioner and found that respondent is entitled to get additional compensation of `.16,445.35/- which was rounded to `.16445/-. 3. The next claim is for compensation for diminished land value. Though the Advocate Commissioner filed Ext.C1, report stating the extent of land affected by the drawal of the line, learned Additional District Judge has not accepted that and C.R.P.No.593 of 2009 -: 2 :- fixed the extent of land affected as only 4 cents having regard to the improvements involved (three yielding coconut trees and four yielding cashew trees). Ext.A1 was produced to show the land value but that was not been accepted by the learned Additional District Judge. In Ext.A1, for 12 cents consideration fixed was `.192,000/-. Learned Additional District Judge found from Ext.C1, report that the property of respondent is situated 35kms away from the district Court and 500meters away from the national highway. But the assessment of land value made by the Advocate Commissioner - `.50,000/- per cent was not accepted. Having regard to the relevant aspects the land value was fixed at `.8,000/- per cent 30% of the land value was taken as compensation payable. Accordingly `.9600/- was awarded as compensation for diminution in land value for 4 cents. 4. Learned counsel argued that compensation awarded is excessive. According to the learned counsel, if `.8,000/- is taken as the land value, for 4 cents the total amount payable is `.32,000/- if it were an acquisition but, compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge exceeded that also. But, I must bear in mind that yielding improvements in the property are cut and removed and the diminution in land value due to drawal C.R.P.No.593 of 2009 -: 3 :- of the line is to affect the respondent in future as well unlike in the case of an acquisition. Having regard to that, I do not find reason to interfere with the additional compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge at the instance of petitioner. This civil revision is dismissed. Sd/- (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-