IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2010 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 CRP.No. 497 of 2010() --------------------- OPELE.40/1998 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/IST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA 630513. REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------- RAMLATH BEEVI, D/O.MUHAMMEDKHAN RAWTHER, AGED 39, PUTHUMANGALATH VEEDU, ERATHU VADAKKEKARA MURI, PATTAZHAI VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2010 ALONG WITH CRP NOS. 539, 637 AND 638 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.Nos.497, 539, 637 and 638 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 17th day of December, 2010 ORDER These petitions arise from separate orders passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Kollam in O.P.Nos.40 and 42 of 1998. Order in O.P.No.40 of 1998 is challenged by the claimant in C.R.P.No.638 of 2010 while respondent/Power Grid Corporaiton (for short, “the Corporation”) has challenged it in C.R.P.No.497 of 2010. Order in O.P.No.42 of 1998 is challenged by the claimant in C.R.P.No.637 of 2010 while the Corporation has challenged it in C.R.P.No.539 of 2010. Both sides are aggrieved by the orders passed by learned Additional District Judge in the matter of additional compensation payable for value of improvements and in awarding compensation for diminished land value. Since in these revisions common question of fact arise, the same are being disposed of by a common order . 2. In O.P.No.40 of 1998, 169 yielding rubber trees and a few other yielding and non yielding trees were removed for drawal of 220kv lines. Learned Additional District Judge fixed the from rubber trees as 10kg per tree, per year, and accordingly fixed the yield for 169 rubber trees. Price for rubber was fixed at C.R.P.Nos.497, 539, 637 and 638 of 2010 : 2 : `.50 per kg. Accordingly additional compensation was fixed for the rubber trees (after making a deduction of 40% towards expenses for maintenance). Additional compensation has been awarded for the other yielding and non yielding trees as well. 3. So far as compensation payable for diminished land value is concerned, learned Additional District Judge has taken the total extent of land affected by drawal of the line as 91 cents and a consolidated sum of `.91,000/- was awarded as compensation. In O.P.No.42 of 1998, 80 yielding rubber trees, a few rubber saplings and other yielding and non yielding trees were removed. Based on Exts.C1 to C3, the yield from rubber trees was fixed as 10kg per tree, per year, and accordingly yield from the rubber trees was fixed. Price for rubber was fixed at `.50 per kg. Accordingly additional compensation was fixed for the rubber trees (after making a deduction of 40% towards expenses for maintenance). Compensation was awarded for other yielding and non yielding trees as well. So far as compensation for diminished land value is concerned, learned Additional District Judge has fixed it at the rate of `.4,000/- per cent for 15 cents. 4. The orders are challenged by both sides. Learned counsel appearing for the parties contended, either that the award is excessive or that it is meager. Learned counsel for the C.R.P.Nos.497, 539, 637 and 638 of 2010 : 3 : Corporation contended that compensation was awarded for diminished land value without any basis and that extent of the land affected was not properly considered. It is also argued that it was without any basis that price of the yield from the yielding improvements was assessed by the learned Additional District Judge. Learned counsel for claimants contended that a deduction of 40% for maintenance is excessive and that multiplier of 8 used is not correct. Additional compensation awarded for other yielding and non yielding improvements also is low. So far as compensation payable for diminished land value is concerned it is contended by learned counsel that claimants had produced in the respective cases document showing the land value at site as `.25,000/- per cent which has not been taken into account. In O.P.No.40 of 1998 compensation payable for diminished land value is taken as `.1,000/- per cent which has no reference to the document produced showing the land value at site. As regards O.P.No.42 of 1998 it is contended that the same principle was adopted by the learned Additional District Judge but `.4,000/- was awarded as compensation only because there is a building in the property and drawal of high tension line affected inhabitance in the building. According to the learned counsel, total extent of land effected in O.P.No.42 of 1998 is 28 cents but compensation was awarded only for 15 cents. C.R.P.Nos.497, 539, 637 and 638 of 2010 : 4 : 5. On hearing counsel on both sides I am inclined to think that a reassessment of additional compensation (if any) payable for value of improvements and compensation (if any) payable for diminished land value is required as it appears to me that the court below has not considered all the relevant aspects while fixing compensation. The court below, in case it finds that claimants are entitled to get additional compensation for value of improvements and compensation for diminished land value has to consider the contentions raised by both sides on all aspects of the matter. It will also be open to the parties to adduce further evidence if any for the said purpose. Resultantly these petitions are allowed in the following lines: Impugned orders in O.P(Ele).Nos.40 and 42 of 1998 of the court of learned Additional District Judge are set aside and those cases are remitted to the court below for fresh disposal after giving both sides opportunity to adduce further evidence on all points on which parties are at issue. Court below shall expedite trial and disposal of the cases having regard to the fact that original petition is filed in the year 1998. The cases shall be disposed of by separate orders. Parties shall appear in the court below on 28-01-2011. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-