IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRP.No. 220 of 2005() ------------------------------- OP(E.A).NO.58/1998 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.S.E.B., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------- G.PANKAJA VALLY KANDALPARAPUTHEN MADATHIL, S.N.PURAM P.O., KANJIKUZHI VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- CRP No.220 of 2005 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March 2011 Order Aggrieved by the enhanced amount granted by the District Court, Alappuzha in OP (EA) No.58/98, the Kerala State Electricity Board has come up in revision. 2. It is an admitted fact that a 110 KV electric line was drawn through the property of the respondent herein and several trees standing in her property were cut and removed for that purpose. The Board awarded a compensation of Rs.14,867/- for the trees cut and removed. Dissatisfied with the amount, the respondent approached the District Court, Alappuzha as per OP(EA) No.58/98. Before the court below, the Board attempted to sustain its award. For the purpose of the petition, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked from the side of the petitioner in the OP. From the side of the respondent therein, Ext.B1 was produced. Exts.C1 to C3 CRP 220/05 2 commissioner's report and rough sketch were also marked as court exhibits. After considering the commissioner's report, the court below held that the petitioner is entitled to additional compensation of Rs.10,522/- towards trees cut and removed. 3. It is pointed out that the enhancement was on the basis of a decision which is no longer a good law. That argument may have some force. One has to notice that considering the number of trees cut and removed, the enhanced amount granted may not be on a right principle of law but there is no genuine reason for reducing the amount. Further, the petitioner was granted Rs.50,625/- towards diminution in land value. For arriving at that amount, the court below relied heavily on the commissioner's report to which no objection has been filed. The court below was prepared to completely accept the report and found that an extent of 22.5 cents is affected. Though the petitioner claimed that the value of the property as Rs.10,000/- per cent, the lower appellate CRP 220/05 3 court on an evaluation of the various documents produced by the petitioner and also considering the nature and lie of the property thought it fit to give Rs.7500/- as the value of the land. Considering the nature of the lines drawn through the property, the court below assessed the diminution in land value as 30%. Therefore, the diminution in land value computed as Rs.50,625/- was found to be justifiable. 4. Objection was taken to that finding of the court below. The court below has considered all the materials on record and found that 22.5 cents of land is really affected. It is quite wrong to say that the trial court has simply accepted the commissioner's report. In fact, it has expressed doubts regarding the valuation and computation of amounts. The value of the land seems to be justified. As regards the diminution percentage, this court feels that there is no reason to interfere with the same. In the result, no grounds are made out warranting interference with the findings of the court below. CRP 220/05 4 The revision petition is without any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. P.Bhavadasan, Judge sta CRP 220/05 5