IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 CRP.No. 2935 of 2000(G) ----------------------- OP.246/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------- THE SECRETARY K S E B BOARD VAIDHUTHIBHAVAN, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT/PETITIONER --------------- M SREEDHARAN S/o. CHATHU VAYALIL VEEDU P O MANGATTIDAM MANGATTIDAM AMSOM AND DESOM KUTHUPARAMBA ADV. SMT.VIDHYA. A.C FOR R1 SRI.SURESH SUKUMAR FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON 25/06/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.2935 of 2000 --------------------------------------- Dated this 25th day of June, 2010 ORDER The State Electricity Board has come up in revision challenging additional compensation awarded by learned Additional District Judge, Thalassery in O.P.No.246 of 1999. It is not disputed that for drawal of 220kv line improvements were cut and removed from the property of respondent. Though the Tahsildar who was deputed by petitioner had assessed compensation payable as Rs.33,075/-, that amount was slashed down by petitioner to Rs.26,836/- which respondent received under protest. He made a claim for enhanced compensation on various grounds including that compensation awarded for value of improvements is low, withholding of Rs.6239/- by petitioner is without any valid reason and that in spite of the land being injuriously affected by drawal of line compensation was not paid for diminished land value. Petitioner gave evidence as PW1. Ext.C1 is the report of Advocate Commissioner. Ext.B1 is the valuation statement prepared by petitioner. Learned Additional District Judge held that in the light of decision in Kumba Amma Vs. K.S.E.B (2000(1) KLT 542) respondent is entitled to get 5% C.R.P.No.2935 of 2000 : 2 : annuity on the income from yielding improvements while petitioner has taken it as 10%. Amount withheld by petitioner (Rs.6239/-) was also allowed as it was found that withholding the amount was without any basis. 2. What remained was claim for compensation for diminished land value. In Ext.C1, report of Advocate Commissioner it is stated that property is situated near a public road which admitted vehicular traffic. Commissioner assessed the land value at Rs.15,000/- per cent. Learned Additional District Judge after considering the evidence fixed value of land in question as Rs.2500/- per cent and stated that having regard to the fact that 220kv line was drawn, 20% of the said amount could be taken as basis for deciding compensation for diminished land value. The extent of property affected was found to be 51.35 cents. Observing so, learned Additional District Judge directed parties to file statements in accordance with the findings. Petitioner did not file any statement while respondent filed statement as per which amount due was Rs.80606.43/-. Learned Additional District Judge awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.80606.43/- in the light of that statement. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that no data has been given by the learned Additional District Judge for C.R.P.No.2935 of 2000 : 3 : awarding additional compensation. It is stated that learned Additional District Judge was not correct in awarding compensation for land value at any rate, fixing land value at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per cent. Further argument is that as against claim of respondent about 30 cents of land is affected by drawal of the line, learned Additional District Judge has awarded compensation for 51.35 cents. It is also argued that without applying mind learned Additional District Judge has accepted statement filed by respondent for the reason that statement was not opposed by petitioner but, it is not correct to say that the statement was not opposed. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in K.S.E.B Vs. Philip Antony (2005(3) KLT 395) 4. This court in the decision referred above held that while deciding compensation court has to apply its mind rather than decide the matter on the statement filed by parties. In the case on hand compensation is fixed not on the basis of statement filed by respondent. Learned Additional District Judge has considered contentions raised by the parties and decided the issue regarding the entitlement of the respondent. Based on the decision of this court it is found that respondent is entitled to get 5% of the income as annuity. Further claims based on value of improvements was not allowed. Learned Additional District Judge also fixed data for C.R.P.No.2935 of 2000 : 4 : awarding compensation for diminished land value. On that basis parties were directed to file statements. That is only for the arithmetical purpose. I do not find anything wrong in learned District Judge directing parties to file statement on the basis of findings entered. I am also not inclined to think that learned District Judge himself should have prepared the statement. 5. So far as compensation for diminished land value is concerned as against the value of Rs.15,000/- per cent fixed by the Commissioner after local enquiry learned Additional District Judge has fixed it as Rs.2500/- taking into account fact that property is situated adjascent to a public road. Importance of the locality has been stated by the learned Additional District Jude in the impugned order. There is little reason to interfere. 6. So far as contention that notwithstanding claim of respondent for about 30 cents learned Additional District Judge fixed the extent of land affected as 51.35 cents is concerned, I must bear in mind that what respondent stated in the petition is only his assessment of extent of the land affected. After all, fixation of compensation is the function of court and what the party is required to give is only his estimation. It is not disputed that around 48 trees were cut and removed from the property for drawal of the line. I have gone through the copy of statement given C.R.P.No.2935 of 2000 : 5 : to me. It included yield coconut trees, arecanut trees and other fruit bearing trees. Having regard to the extent of improvements cut and removed no interference is required in the finding that extent of land affected is 51.35 cents. 7. I must also bear in mind that statement prepared by the respondent based on the finding entered by learned Additional District Judge contained endorsement of counsel for petitioner that the statement is found to be correct. According to learned counsel for petitioner, that did not mean that petitioner had no objection to the said statement. I am afraid, that interpretation cannot be accepted. When counsel for petitioner in the court below to whom copy of statement was given stated that the statement is correct, I must understand that correctness of the statement is not disputed. If that be so, petitioner cannot be heard to say that the statement should not have been accepted. There is no reason to interfere with the finding of the court below the respondent is entitled to get Rs.80,606/- by way of additional compensation. 8. But it is seen that interest is awarded at the rate of 12% per annum on the sum of Rs.52,601.31/-. Having regard to the circumstances stated, interest payable on the amount due to the respondent can be fixed as 9% per annum from the date of tree cutting. Respondent has filed a statement in accordance with the C.R.P.No.2935 of 2000 : 6 : above which is as follows: Loss of utility of 51.35 cents of land : 25,675 @ 500 rupees per cent Amount reduced by the respondent : 6,239 Timber Value : 843.50 Additional Compensation for trees cut taking at 5% : 19,768.81 ---------------------------- Total of enhanced amount : 52,526.31 Interest on Rs.26,836 from 24.2.97 to 24.3.99 @ 9% per annum : 5031.75 (2 years and 1 month) from the date cutting to date of payment Interest on Rs.52,526.31 @ 9% from 24.2.97 to 10.7.00 (3 years 4 months : 15,949.61 and 16 days) from the date cutting to the date of order ------------------------------ Total of interest : 20981.36 Total of enhanced amount + Total of interest (52.526.31 + 20981.36) : 73,507.67 ====== (Rounded at Rs.73,508/-) C.R.P.No.2935 of 2000 : 7 : Thus the total amount due to the respondent by way of enhanced compensation comes to Rs.73,508/-. Respondent will get interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the sum of Rs.52,526.31 (rounded at Rs.52,526/-) from the date of order of the court below till realisation. Resultantly this revision petition is allowed in part and the order under challenge is modified in the following lines: (i) Respondent is allowed to realise from petitioner enhanced compensation of Rs.73,508/- (Rupees Seventy Three Thousand Five Hundred and Eight Only) (ii) Respondent will get interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the sum of Rs.52,526/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Six Only) from the date of order of the court below till date of realisation. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-