IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.NO. 167 OF 2008() --------------------- {OP(ELE.) NO.54/2003 OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): 1ST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------- 1. SRI.THOMAS THOMAS, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, KATTUNILATHU HOUSE, NIRANAM VILLAGE, NIRANAM SOUTH MURI, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SMT.SOSAMMA THOMAS, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.THOMAS THOMAS, KATTUNILATHU HOUSE, NIRANAM VILLAGE, NIRANAM SOUTH MURI, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 1ST RESPONDENT REP. BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. R2 BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.167 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23 rd day of February, 2010 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order dated 27.06.2004 in O.P.(Ele)No.54 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pathanamthitta. The respondents in the above petition (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) have filed this revision. Petitioners in the application (hereinafter referred to as the claimants), dissatisfied with the compensation fixed and awarded by the Corporation towards the cutting and removal of valuable trees from their property for the drawing of overhead lines, filed the above petition seeking enhanced compensation under Section 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act. The Corporation resisted that application contending that compensation awarded was just C.R.P.No.167 of 2008 :: 2 :: and reasonable. The court below, after enquiry on the basis of the materials produced and on hearing the counsel on both sides, passed an order awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.83,360/- directing the Corporation to pay such sum with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Propriety and correctness of the order awarding such enhanced compensation is challenged by the Corporation in this revision. 2. I heard counsel on both sides. 3. Perusing the impugned order and after hearing the counsel on both sides, it is seen that the Corporation has ascertained the loss and damages sustained to the claimants only with respect to the trees cut and removed from their property. A sum of Rs.1,11,604/- was awarded by the Corporation as compensation. Admittedly compensation was C.R.P.No.167 of 2008 :: 3 :: adjudged in respect of the trees cut and removed by the Corporation by adopting the annuity return of 10%, which has been found not proper and correct by a series of judicial pronouncements rendered by this court. This court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B {2000(1) KLT 542 FB} has directed for ascertaining the compensation in respect of the loss sustained by tree cutting for the purpose of drawing overhead lines by adopting annuity return of 5%. The court below, it is seen, had assessed compensation with respect to the trees following the guidelines given by this court in the above decision, that too only in respect of 8 yielding coconut trees and yielding arecanut trees. In respect of those trees, the Corporation had assessed compensation of Rs.60,528.60. Adopting annuity return of 5%, on re-assessment of the compensation, the court below found that C.R.P.No.167 of 2008 :: 4 :: enhanced compensation of Rs.49,579,67/- was due to the claimants and that sum was accordingly awarded. True, the principles laid down by this court in Kumba Amma's case have been found to be unsuitable and cannot be applied universally by the Apex Court as held in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha and others {2007(3) K.L.T. 1}. The Apex Court directed for taking into consideration the situs of the land, its proximity with the office buildings and such other relevant factors in determining the compensation payable in such cases. However, taking note that the total extent of the property covered is 18.80 Ares and the number of trees cut and removed both yielding and non-yielding, much less I find that a re- assessment of the compensation with reference to Livisha's case {2007(3) K.L.T. 1} is uncalled for. More so, in the present case, the trees were cut and removed at least one C.R.P.No.167 of 2008 :: 5 :: decade before. By no stretch of imagination, it can be stated, the enhanced compensation as refixed by the court below adopting annuity return fo 5% in respect of the yielding coconut and arecanut trees is excessive and unreasonable. At any rate, no ground has been made out in the present case for interference with the re-assessments so made in respect of the enhanced compensation awarded for the trees cut and removed. 4. Corporation has admittedly not paid any sum towards the diminution of the land on account of the drawing of overhead lines. The lines have been drawn for the purpose of Kayamkulam-Pallom 220 KV line. Needless to point out, when 220 KV electric lines are drawn through the property, sufficient area has to be kept on both sides to prevent mishap and also for ensuring free flow of energy through those lines without any C.R.P.No.167 of 2008 :: 6 :: hindrance. The advocate commissioner deputed by the court, after local inspection, has determined the area affected by the drawing of lines as 33.78 cents. Second claimant who was examined as a witness in her evidence has stated that the affected area is only 25 cents is highlighted by the learned counsel for the Corporation to contend that the report of the Commissioner showing a larger extent which had been accepted by the court and on which determination of land value was also fixed, was not correct and it warrants interference. The learned counsel for the claimants inviting my attention to the averments made in the original petition submitted that the claimants have asserted even in their petition that an area of 35 cents was injuriously affected by the drawing of overhead lines. Having referred to the report filed by the commissioner over which, admittedly, no C.R.P.No.167 of 2008 :: 7 :: objection was raised by the Corporation, I find the statement given by the second claimant in her evidence that a lesser extent was affected is only a slip of the tongue and it cannot be given much significance. The report collected through the commissioner in the present case on its acceptance was a relevant piece of evidence and that could be safely acted upon to determine the affected area. Perusing the order passed by the learned District Judge, it is seen that the land value has also been fixed with reference to the value fo adjoining land on the basis of a registered sale deed. The injurious affection of the land by the drawing of the line has been fixed at 20% by the court below. The assessment so made, it is seen, is reasonable. Towards injurious affection, the court below has awarded a sum of Rs.33,781/-. It is also seen from the order that the C.R.P.No.167 of 2008 :: 8 :: evidence let in in the case indicated the property of the claimants has commercial importance as well. When that be so, I find no interference with the compensation fixed towards diminution of land value emerge for consideration. Suffice to state that the enhanced compensation awarded by the court below is only just and reasonable and it does not warrant any modification. Revision lacks merits and is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//