IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 CRP.No. 117 of 2007() --------------------- OPEA.362/2002 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT: ----------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: ------------------ THANKACHI, PANICKARATHU, EVOOR NORTH, CHEPPAD. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.117 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st September, 2008. O R D E R First respondent, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., is challenging the enhanced compensation awarded by Additional District Court, Alappuzha, in O.P.(E.A.) No.362 of 2002, for drawing 220 KV electric line through Survey Nos.221/20 and 232/7 of Cheppad Village, belonging to the respondent, and having a total extent of 35 cents. Yielding and non-yielding trees were cut. A compensation of Rs.19,200/= was awarded. Respondent received the same under protest and filed a petition for enhanced compensation under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, before District Court, Alappuzha. Petitioner resisted the claim contending that reasonable compensation was awarded. Learned District Judge, on the evidence of respondent as PW.1, Commissioner as PW.2, Exts.C1 and C1(a) report and plan, and Ext.A2 mahazar, granted a total compensation of CRP.No.117 of 2007 2 Rs.20,340/=, based on Kumba Amma v. KSEB (2000 (1) KLT 542 (FB). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Kumba Amma's case (supra) was modified by the Apex court in Livisha v. KSEB (2007 (3) KLT 1), and, therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned District Judge is to be interfered. 3. On going through the award, it is seen that enhanced compensation awarded for the trees cut, though based on Kumba Amma's case, was only Rs.9,090/=. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the enhancement. Similarly, enhanced compensation for diminution of land value was awarded based on Ext.C1 report and evidence of PW.2, fixing the land value at Rs.5000/= per cent, less than the value shown in Ext.A1, the sale deed, relied on by the parties. It is clear that an extent of property having a width of 19 meters and a length of 60 meters is injuriously affected by the drawing of the line. In such circumstances, compensation CRP.No.117 of 2007 3 awarded is only reasonable and just. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said award. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.