IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 CRP.No. 421 of 2008() --------------------- OPELE.65/2005 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------- AUGUSTINE, S/O.VARKEY, THUKKALA MURYIL, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2008, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 566 OF 2008 . THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P.Nos.421 & 566 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6 th day of October, 2008 ORDER C.R.P.No.421 of 2008 is filed by the KSEB and CRP No.566 of 2008 is filed by the claimant. 2. Some time in the year 2000, the KSEB drew the Aroor- Kalamassery 110 KV electric line through the Aroor village of Cherthala Taluk. The line was also drawn through the periphery of 14.25 cents of property situated in Sy.No.421/1-4-5 of Aroor village belonging to the claimant in this case. The KSEB awarded a sum of Rs.12254/- as compensation for the cutting and removal of 6 yielding coconut trees and two yielding arecanut trees, besides other non-yielding trees. No amount was awarded by the KSEB towards diminution in land value. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the KSEB, the claimant filed O.P(E.A) No.65 of 2005 before the District Court, Alappuzha claiming enhanced compensation. As per the impugned order dated 15.1.08, the learned Additional District Judge awarded a sum of Rs.10,262/- by way of additional compensation for the C.R.P.Nos.421& 566/08 2 yielding trees cut applying the capitalisation method and following 5% annuity as per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Kumba Amma V/s.KSEB (2000(1)KLT 542). With regard to the diminution land value, that court, disagreeing with the report of the Commissioner that 6.76 cents had been affected, held that the area which was affected by the drawal of line was not exceeding 2 cents. Fixing the market value of land at Rs.20,000/- per cent that court held that the diminution in land value would be 20% of the market value and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards diminution in land value. A total of 18,262/- was thus awarded as enhanced compensation in the case. It is said order dated 15.1.08 passed by the Additional District Judge which is assailed both by the KSEB as well as by the claimant. 3. Neither the claimant nor anybody on behalf of the KSEB was examined before the court below. The only evidence consists of Ext.A1 sale deed of the year 2006 and the order dated 28.03.05 of this Court in C.R.P.No.1279/2003, besides Ext.B1 detailed valuation statement by the KSEB. The only other evidence was Ext.C1 report and C1(a) rough sketch filed by the C.R.P.Nos.421& 566/08 3 Advocate Commissioner. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB submitted that the market value has been arbitrarily fixed by the court below at Rs.20,000/- without any evidence in that behalf and therefore the enhancement given by way of diminution in land value is on the higher side. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the court below ought to have accepted Exts.A1 and A2 and fixed a higher amount by way of market value and the court below also should have accepted the Commissioner's assessment that the affected area is 6.76 cents instead of 2 cents. 5. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the submissions made on behalf of both sides. Ext.A1 admittedly does not pertain to the date of cutting or nearby time. The cutting in this case was in the year 2000 and Ext.A1 sale deed pertains to the year 2006. Apart from the fact that Ext.A1 is six years after the cutting, it does not show whether the property covered thereunder is a comparable land. The advantages or disadvantages, if any, of Ext.A1 property have not been proved by any other acceptable evidence. Reliance placed on the C.R.P.Nos.421& 566/08 4 Ext.A2 copy of this Court's order in C.R.P.No.1279/2007 also has no relevance to the claim. It was not shown that of the said case pertains to the same cutting or with regard to a comparable property having the same advantage as that of the claimant's land. Same is the position with regard to the additional evidence produced in the form of order dated 5.3.99 in C.R.P.No.1179 of 1998 passed by this Court. There is nothing in the said order to indicate that the said order pertains to the adjacent property or even the same Survey Number. Merely because the land value in that case was fixed at Rs.21,500/-, it cannot be straightaway adopted as the market value in this case. It may be true that the cutting in that case was in the year 1993. But then when the property involved in that case is not shown to be anywhere near the present property having the same advantages or disadvantages, the said order cannot be pressed into service for claiming enhancement of compensation. No doubt, the court below fixed the market value at Rs.20,000/- without any comparable sale deed in that behalf. But then some amount of arbitrariness is involved in cases of this nature. At any rate, as against a sum of Rs.2.3 lakhs per cent in Ext.A1 sale deed C.R.P.Nos.421& 566/08 5 of the year 2006, the court below had fixed only Rs.20,000/- which cannot be said to be either excessive or too low. The fixation of 20% of the market value as diminution land value also cannot be said to be unreasonably high or on the lower side, having regard to the fact that the line has been drawn towards the periphery of the total property of 14.25 cents held by the claimant in the said survey number. The court below has given valid reason as to why a lesser area than what was opined by the Commissioner as the affected area. I therefore do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the court below and the same is confirmed. Both the revisions are accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 6 th day of October, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj