IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 CRP.No. 2488 of 2000(B) ----------------------- OP.72/1998 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT:- --------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, VYDHYUDHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER:- --------------- PULUKKOOL DEVI, W/O.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, CHERUPAZHASSI AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= C.R.P. No. 2488 of 2000 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 5th day of July, 2011 0 R D E R Revision petitioner is the Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by its Chairman who is the respondent in O.P. No.72/1998 on the file of the Addl. District Court, Thalassery. In this revision petition the revision petitioner challenges the order of the learned Addl. District Judge dated March 23, 2000 granting additional compensation under section section 16(3) of Indian Telegraphs Act and section 51 of Indian Electricity Act for the trees cut and removed for drawing a 220 KV electric line through the property of the respondent. 2. The facts, in brief, are these:- For the purpose of drawing 220 KV electric line the Board cut and removed 15 coconut trees and 19 arecanut trees from the property of the respondent having an extent of 15 cents comprised in R.S.No.198/3 of Mayyil Vilalge. The Deputy Tahsildar who was the Valuing Officer assessed the value of cut trees as `38,088/- and the respondent was awarded a compensation of `36,180/-. CRP 2488/2000 2 3. The respondent has filed the O.P. contending that no compensation has been awarded for diminution in land value and utility of the land and that the valuation of the trees cut was not done correctly. The revision petitioner in the counter statement contended that the valuation of the trees were done by the Assessing Officer in a correct manner and that the respondent is put to strict proof regarding the diminution in land value. 4. This Original Petition was jointly tried along with other connected Original Petitions. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the petitioners in the Original Petition. The Board produced Exts.B1 to B6. Report of the Commissioner and plan were marked as Ext.C1 to C7(a). Exts.C2 and C2(a) report and plan with respect to the properties of the petitioner in this O.P. 5. The lower court on an appreciation of the evidence fixed the land value at `2,000/- per cent and assessed the diminution in land value at 20% of the market value of the land i.e., `400/- per cent for 7.5 cents. The lower court has found CRP 2488/2000 3 that respondent/petitioner in the O.P. is entitled to re-fix the value of the cut trees as per the guidelines prescribed by this Court in C.R.P. No.290/1985 i.e., the present value of an annuity which gives a return @ 5% per annum. The respondent was also found entitled to get timber value as shown in Col No.20 of the valuation statement. The lower court awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of cutting of trees. Altogether an additional compensation of `56,751/- together with interest @ 12% per annum for `28,213/- from the date of the order till payment was granted. The Board has come up in revision challenging the quantum of additional compensation awarded by the lower court. 6. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and the counsel for the respondent. 7. The counsel for the revision petitioner Board argued that the lower court is not justified in fixing the land value at `2,000/- per cent and awarding diminution at the rate of 20%. He has also submitted that there is no justification in ordering re-fixation of the value of the cut trees. In the light of the CRP 2488/2000 4 principles laid down in C.R.P. No.290/1985, the interest awarded by the lower court is also challenged. 8. The only question which arise for consideration is whether the lower court is justified in awarding additional compensation. 9. I have gone through the records of the lower court and the impugned order. I am of the view that the lower court is perfectly justified in granting additional compensation. 10. First I shall consider whether the lower court is right in fixing the land value of `2,000/- per cent and awarding diminution of 20% of the market value of the land.Exts.C1 to C6 are the earlier Commission report and plan. Exts.C7 and C7 (a) are the revised report and plan submitted by the Commissioner. Ext.C2 and C2(a) relate to this case. The Commissioner has estimated the land value at `12,000/-. The plot has direct road access and the nearest town is 4 k.m. away from the property. Educational institutions as well as commercial establishments are available in the locality as reported by the Commissioner. Taking into consideration all CRP 2488/2000 5 these aspects, I am of the view that the lower court is perfectly justified in fixing the land value @ `2,000/-per cent. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Kerala State Electricty Board V. T.T.P. Kayyu (1996(1) KLT 432) that compensation for diminution in market value of the property can be granted. Taking into consideration the acquired property is an agricultural land and no cultivation can be conducted under the electric line, the lower court is perfectly justified in fixing the diminution in land value as 20% market value of the land. 11. Next I shall consider whether the lower court is justified in awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of cutting of trees till payment. I shall also consider whether the lower court is right in assessing the value of the trees, taking in to account the present value of annuity, which gives a return @ 5% per annum. This Court in C.R.P. No.290/1985 has held that compensation payable for destruction of trees shall be the present value of annuity, which gives a return @ 5% per annum. That being so, the CRP 2488/2000 6 lower court is justified in re-fixing the value of the cut trees as mentioned above. 12. The Deputy Tahsildar who is also the Valuing Officer assessed the compensation of `38,008/- but Deputy Chief Engineer reduced it to `36,180/-. No reason has been sated by the Deputy Chief Engineer to reduce the compensation amount. Therefore, the lower court is perfectly justified in finding that the respondent is entitled to the amount calculated by the Deputy Chief Engineer. The respondent is also entitled to timber value of trees, in the light of Manual of Instruction issued by the Board. No other point is argued before me. 13. That apart, the Board has challenged the impugned judgment in C.R.P. Nos.2654 of 2001 and 378, 380, 381, 382, 458, 459, 463, 682, 684, 685, 748, 749, 754 and 1435 of 2003 and this Court by a common order dated June 12, 2008 had dismissed those revision petitions holding that the additional compensation granted by the lower court is not excessive. 14. For all these reasons, I hold that the additional compensation awarded by the lower court is just and CRP 2488/2000 7 reasonable and not excessive. That being so the appeal has to be dismissed. 15. In the result, confirming the impugned order of the lower court, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn. CRP 2488/2000 8 P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ C.R.P. No. 2488 of 2000 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ 0 R D E R 5th day of July, 2011