IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 CRP.No. 464 of 2010() --------------------- OP(ELE).364/2006 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS IN OP: -------------------------------------- 1. P.SOLOMON, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE PAULOSE, KARINCHA VEEDU, KUMBALAM P.O., MULAVANA, KOLLAM. 2. OMANA SOLOMON, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.P.SOLOMON, KARINCHA VEEDU, KUMBALAM P.O., MULAVANA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.MILTON RESPONDENT: --------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No. 464 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 13th day of September, 2010 ORDER Standing Counsel, Adv.Sri.C.K.Karunakaran takes notice for the respondent. Heard both sides. 2. This revision is in challenge of order dated 23-04-2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Kollam in O.P (Ele.).No.364 of 2010 awarding enhanced compensation to the petitioner. 3. It is not disputed that 220kv line was drawn through the property of petitioner. A few yielding and non yielding trees were cut for the purpose. Respondent awarded Rs.30,234/- as compensation which learned Additional District Judge has enhanced. Petitioner gave evidence as PW1 and produced Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is a notice issued by the respondent before cutting the improvements. Ext.A2 is copy of a document produced to show land value at the locality. Ext.A3 is the plan. It is the case of petitioner that compensation awarded is low. Petitioner gave evidence as PW1. Learned Additional District Judge found possible yield from the improvements, its value and making a deduction of 40% for maintenance cost compensation C.R.P.No.464 of 2010 : 2 : was fixed taking a multiplier. The principle adopted by learned Additional District Judge in awarding value of improvements does not appear to be correct. The relevant decisions on the point and the annuity factor are not considered. 4. So far as compensation awarded for diminished land value is concerned it would appear from paragraph 10 of the order that 39 cents was taken as the land effected by drawal of the line but what is awarded is Rs.70,000/- i.e, @ Rs.10,000/- per cent for 7 cents (used for construction of tower). It appears that for property other than occupied by the tower, compensation for diminished land value has not been awarded. Both sides are aggrieved by the extent of land, land value and compensation assessed. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that compensation awarded on both grounds is low. Learned counsel for respondent contended that no commission was taken out to show whether land value is diminished and if so the extent of land effected and the land value. 5. On hearing counsel on both sides and going through the order under challenge I find that compensation has not been assessed in the proper manner. As such the order cannot be sustained. I make it clear that it will be open to the counsel on C.R.P.No.464 of 2010 : 3 : both sides to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. Resultantly the impugned order is set aside and O.P(Ele.). No. 364 of 2010 is remitted to the court of learned Additional District Judge-II, Kollam for fresh decision after giving both sides opportunity to adduce further evidence in support of their contentions. Parties shall appear in that court on 30-09-2010. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-