IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 925 of 2006() --------------------- OPELE.19/1996 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LAND ACQUISITION), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: -------------------------- SMT. P.JAYASUDHA, W/O. MOHANAN, CHENNIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.3322/2006 IN CRP.NO.925/2006 DISMISSED. 16.2.2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.925 OF 2006 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010 O R D E R The respondent in O.P.(Ele).No.19 of 1996, Kerala State Electricity Board is the revision petitioner. The revision is directed against the awarding of enhanced compensation to the claimant in the O.P./the respondent in the revision towards the loss caused by the drawing of the overhead lines through her property by cutting and removing valuable trees and also diminution of the land value of her property. Revision petitioner, Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the 'Board' awarded compensation of Rs.13,298/- to the claimant. Feeling aggrieved that the compensation is inadequate and insufficient, the above original petition was filed seeking enhanced compensation. The learned District Judge, after enquiry, passed the impugned order awarding a sum of Rs.21,842/- as enhanced compensation directing the Board to pay such sum with 6% interest per annum from the date of the order till realisation. Propriety and correctness of CRP.925/06 2 the order so passed awarding enhanced compensation is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel appearing for the Board assailed the order contending that no worthmentioning material was produced by the claimant to have a reassessment of the compensation showing her entitlement to claim any excess amount over and above what was awarded by the Board. It is pointed out that the court below on mere surmises and conjunctures without any material, awarded a sum of Rs.23,140/- as enhanced compensation towards the cutting and removal of the trees from the property of the claimant. Similarly, in respect of the compensation awarded towards diminution of land value, according to the counsel, there was no material in the case for awarding the sum of Rs.10,000/- as fixed by the court below. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the sum awarded as enhanced compensation by the court below is only just and reasonable, and no interference is called for in exercise of its revisional CRP.925/06 3 jurisdiction. 3. Perusing the impugned order, it is seen that fourteen yielding coconut trees aged from 12 to 20 years and nine other coconut trees aged from five to fifteen years, which too yielding, had been cut and removed for the drawing of the overhead lines through the property of the claimant which is stated to be having an extent of 50 cents. The Board had assessed the compensation at the rate of 10% annuity per return in fixing the amount payable to the claimant towards the cutting down of the trees. On reassessment of the compensation with reference to the guidelines and principles enunciated by this Court in its judicial pronouncements the learned District Judge found that the claimant is entitled to have enhanced compensation at Rs.23,140/- towards the cutting down of the yielding trees from her property. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the reassessment of the compensation and the sum fixed by the learned District Judge. So far as the diminution of the land value, it is seen, the court below has entered a finding that 20 cents of the property out CRP.925/06 4 of the total 50 cents had been injuriously affected by the drawing of the overhead lines. A sum of Rs.500/- per cent was fixed by the court to determine the diminution of the land value. Having regard to the number of the trees cut and removed, that is, 24 yielding coconut trees aged from 9 to 15 years, I find that the area fixed which had been affected by the drawing of the overhead lines cannot be termed as improper or unreasonable. Sum of Rs.500/- per cent fixed towards the diminution of land value also appears to be reasonable. So much so, there is no scope for interfering with the sum fixed at Rs.10,000/- towards the diminution of the land value. The learned counsel for the Board has brought to my notice that in awarding of enhanced compensation, a mistake has crept in the calculation while deducting the sum already fixed and paid by the Board. The actual amount due after giving credit of the enhanced compensation on reduction of the amount already paid, is only Rs.19,842/-. Submissions made by the counsel is found to be correct. To that extent, the order of the court below warrants modification. So much so, in modification of the order of the court below, the enhanced compensation is CRP.925/06 5 refixed as Rs.19,842/- instead of Rs.21,842/- as fixed by the court below. The claimant will be entitled to release such sum of Rs.19,842/- with 6% interest per annum as directed by the court below. Subject to the above modification and limited to that extent only, the order of the court below is approved and the revision is disposed of accordingly. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp