IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 CRP.No. 350 of 2008() --------------------- OP(ELE)33/1996 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC I), WAYANAD, KALPETTA. ................................................. REVISION PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED KUTTY, MANAKKADAVAN HOUSE, KANIYABETTA POST, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD. R1 BY ADVS. MR.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, MR.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.965/2008 IN C.R.P.NO.350/2008 DISMISSED 5/08/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.350 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 5th August, 2009 ORDER Revision is directed against the order dated 22.6.2005 in O.P. (Ele.)No.33 of 1996 passed by the Additional District Court(Adhoc-1), Wayanad, Kalpetta. The above O.P. was filed by the respondent claiming enhanced compensation under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Sections 40 and 60 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1948. towards the damages sustained in the drawing of the overhead 220 KV electric line through his property in Kaniyambetta village causing cutting and removal of valuable trees and injurious affectation to his land. The revision petitioner assessed the compensation payable at Rs.15,859/- and disputing that compensation, the claim was made in the O.P. for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as compensation. The claim was resisted by the K.S.E.B. contending reasonable and adequate compensation had been provided to the claimant. The learned District Judge, after conducting an enquiry over the claim raised in the O.P. in which an advocate commissioner conducted an inspection over the property, through which the line was drawn and filed a report, ascertaining the reasonable compensation payable passed the order impugned in the revision CRP No.350/08 - 2 - awarding a total sum of Rs.77,419/-. The amount already fixed by the Board was ordered to be deducted from the compensation arrived at with direction to pay the balance sum with 12% interest from the date of cutting of the trees till realisation within one month from the date of the order. In the event of default to pay the sum within one month, the order shows the compensation adjudged will carry interest at 9% per annum till realisation. Compensation so awarded under the petition is challenged by the Board in the revision contending that it is excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the decisions relied by the court below which are stated in the impugned order is strictly not applicable as the principles laid down thereunder in the matter of assessment of compensation have not been approved by the apex court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [ (2007) 6 S.C.C. 792]. So much so, a remission of the case for reassessing the compensation in the light of the decision rendered by the apex court as referred to above is sought for by allowing this revision. I find that in the decision relied by the learned counsel rendered by the apex court, so far as in the assessment of compensation relating to the diminution of land value by the drawing of overhead lines, a principle CRP No.350/08 - 3 - different from that evolved as stated in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542(FB) has been rendered and necessarily in determination of compensation in the matter, the principle laid down by the apex court has to be followed. However, in the present case, it is noticed on the basis of the commission report, the market value of the property was assessed at Rs.3000/- per cent and differing from the opinion of the commissioner that 40% of the land value has to be provided towards the injurious affectation, the court below has fixed it at 25%. Taking note of the injurious affectation over the land (nearly 40 cents of land) and the sum fixed above towards the centage value and the percentage fixed for diminution at 25%, the court has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards injurious affectation of land. By no stretch of imagination it can be considered to be excessive and unreasonable. Compensation provided for the trees cut and removed, it is seen, was based on a valuation statement with reference to the yield, age, potential value etc. to which the Board has no objection at all. So much so, there cannot be any challenge as to the quantum of compensation fixed on the basis of the valuation statement towards the cutting down of trees for the drawing of the overhead lines through the property of the respondent. I find no merit in the CRP No.350/08 - 4 - challenge raised by the Board that the compensation awarded is excessive and unreasonable. The order passed by the court below on the contrary is shown to be reasonable, and the assessment of compensation is found to be just, proper and correct. There is no merit in the revision, and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE