IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 CRP.No. 741 of 2008() --------------------- OP (ELE.)243/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ IST RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NAGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM IN ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------ AMBIKAMMA, W/O. THANKAPPAN PILLAI, NADUVATHUSSERIL HOUSE, THUVAYOOR NORTH MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== C.R.P. No. 741 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008. ORDER The Power Grid Corporation of India challenges the order dated 28.02.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pathanamthitta in O.P (Ele.) 243/1999. 2. For the purpose of drawing the Kayamkulam-Edamon 220 KV electric transmission line, the Power Grid Corporation had cut and removed 31 yielding rubber trees from the property of the respondent/claimant Ambikamma comprised in Survey No. 656/15B of Erathu village. The compensation which was awarded by the Corporation to the claimant was Rs.29,424. No amount by way of diminution in land value was awarded by the Corporation. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the Corporation, the claimant filed the above O.P before the District Court. As per the impugned order, the District Court awarded a sum of Rs.13,086 as additional compensation for the trees cut and Rs.38.306.25 as diminution in land value. The sum of Rs.13,086 was arrived at by applying the 5% annuity as held in Kumbha Amma Vs. K.S.E.B - 2000 (1) KLT 542. 3. The main challenge is against the award of diminution in land value. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended C.R.P. No. 741/2008 : 2: that in the light of the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in K.S.E.B Vs. Livisha – 2007(3) KLT 1, particularly paragraph 10 thereof, the five per cent annuity fixed by Kumbha Amma's case should not be taken as a guiding factor, I am not inclined to accept the said contention. Hence, in the absence of other factors, there is nothing wrong in accepting Kumbh Amma's case which has not been in any way dissented from or overruled in Livisha's case. 4. With regard to the diminution in land value, the learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:- Ext.A4 is the sale deed dated 13.12.1996 relied on by the claimant for claiming land value at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent. Even though the court below fixed the land value only at Rs.15,000/- per cent, one of the executants to Ext.A4 examined as PW2 frankly confessed that the property involved in these proceedings is situated 200 metres away from his property which is located near a junction. If so, the court below was virtually wrong in treating the said property as a similarly situated property. 5. It is true that the property covered by Ext.A4 is situated near a junction. But then, the court below has relied on the report of the Commissioner who has stated that the property of the claimant is C.R.P. No. 741/2008 : 3: having close proximity to many public institutions like Engineering College, Polytechnic etc. and is situated about 200 metres away from Chittani – Mannadi bus route. As per the assessment of the Advocate Commissioner, 17.025 cents out of 22 cents of dry land belonging to the claimant is the affected area. Even though the centage value of Ext.A4 property was Rs.20,000/- per cent, the court below has fixed the market value at Rs.15,000/- taking into account the fact that the claimant's property is situated slightly away from Ext.A4 property and that the cutting in this case was of the year 1998. I do not find any illegality on the part of the court below in fixing the said value. The diminution in land value was fixed at 15% of the market value. Hence, the enhanced compensation awarded by the court below does not call for any interference. This revision is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv C.R.P. No. 741/2008 : 4: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== C.M. Application No. 934 of 2008 in C.R.P. No. 741 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008. ORDER Heard both sides. Having regard to the averments in the affidavit in support of the petition, the delay of 261 days in filing the revision is condoned. Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv