IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 CRP.No. 530 of 2010() --------------------- OP(ELE).41/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------- ANAS.R., S/O.RAJA, KALIKKATTU VELIYIL, WARD NO.1, PUNNAPRA SOUTH PANCHAYATH, PUNNAPRA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.T.JAYAKRISHNAN, SRI.A.V.CHARLES, SRI.N.BALA BINDU.B. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.530 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 13th day of December, 2010 ORDER Respondent in O.P(Ele.).No.41 of 2007 of the court of learned Additional District Judge is the petitioner before me challenging the order dated, July 23, 2010 awarding `.1,31,250/- as compensation for diminished land value with 6% interest from date of cutting of the trees. Electric line was drawn through property of respondent for which certain yielding improvements were removed from the property. Petitioner paid `.8,900/- by way of compensation. Being aggrieved, respondent filed O.P (Ele).No.41 of 2007 and claimed enhanced compensation for value of improvements and compensation for diminished land value. That application was opposed by petitioner on various grounds. It was contended that amount paid is sufficient and that respondent is not entitled to get compensation for diminished land value. PWs.1 and 2 and the Advocate Commissioner prepared Exts.C1 and C2, report and sketch, (CW1) were examined. Ext.A1 series were marked in evidence. Learned Additional District Judge did not allow enhancement of compensation for value of improvements but awarded C.R.P.No.530 of 2010 : 2 : compensation for diminished land value which is under challenge. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that respondent is not entitled to get compensation for diminished land value and at any rate, amount awarded is excessive. Counsel for respondent has supported the order. 2. What remained to be considered is only whether compensation awarded for diminished land value is reasonable. It is seen from Ext.C2, sketch that electric line is drawn along south western portion of entire property belonging to the respondent. Though respondent claimed that the drawal has affected 25 cents learned Additional District Judge has accepted the extent effected by drawal of the line as 8¾ cents accepting contention of petitioner. Hence, petitioner cannot be aggrieved by that finding. 3. So far as land value is concerned though respondent claimed it as `.70,000/- per cent, no documentary evidence was produced. Advocate Commissioner in Ext.C1 has reported after local enquiry that land value can be fixed at `.30,000/- which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge. It is true that Advocate Commissioner has not referred to any document of title relating to the adjascent properties but under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure Advocate Commissioner can conduct local enquiry and assess market value of the property. C.R.P.No.530 of 2010 : 3 : Considering the locality where the property is situated as revealed from Ext.C1, I do not find reason to interfere with the report of Advocate Commissioner that land value is `.30,000/- per cent. 4. But it is seen that learned Additional District Judge has fixed compensation payable for diminished land value as 50% of the land value which appears to be excessive. I must bear in mind that of the 1.36 Acres belonging to the respondent, line is drawn along the south western portion. Having regard to that, I am inclined to think that 40% of land value can be taken as basis for fixation of diminished land value. That brings the amount payable to `.1,05,000/- (8¾ x 40/100 x 30,000). Resultantly this petition is allowed in part and compensation payable by petitioner to the respondent is modified as `.1,05,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Five Thousand Only) with interest @6% per annum from date of cutting till payment. Parties shall suffer their cost in this proceeding. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-