IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 300 of 2008() --------------------- OP(ELE.)101/2003 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- PARAMESWARA PANICKER N., S/O NARAYANA PILLAI, POYKKARANPARAMBU, PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- C.R.P No.300 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March 2010 ORDER Revision is filed with a petition to condone delay of 47 days challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P(Ele.) No.101 of 2003 awarding enhanced compensation to the respondent/claimant. Notice was ordered to the respondent but despite repeated service, the respondent has not turned up. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is the Kerala State Electricity Board hereinafter referred to as the Board. For the purpose of drawing 110 KV electric transmission line between Punnapra and Edathua, some trees were cut down from the property of the respondent/claimant situate in Survey No.349/8 of Punnapra village. The board awarded a compensation of Rs.11,212/- towards the loss and injury sustained by the claimant. Seeking enhanced compensation, the claimant filed the above petition before the court. An advocate commissioner appointed by the court conducted a local inspection and filed a report which was exhibited as Ext.C1. Claimant was examined as PW1 and a copy of a registered sale deed was exhibited on his side as Ext.A1. The District Judge after appreciating the materials produced granted enhanced compensation of Rs.2,932/- towards the damages C.R.P No.300 OF 2008 Page numbers sustained in respect of cutting down of trees and another sum of Rs.8,000/- towards diminution of land value suffered by the claimant by the drawing of the overhead lines through his property. Enhanced compensation so allowed is impeached in the revision by the Board. There was only one yielding coconut tree other than some nonyielding trees is the case of the learned counsel for the Board to contend that the compensation already paid was adequate and reasonable. Admittedly the Board assessed the compensation by an annuity return of 10% and the District Judge reassessed such compensation by adopting annuity return of 5%. On such assessment the claimant was found entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.2,932/- towards the trees cut down from his property. I find no infirmity in the assessment of compensation by the District Judge adopting annuity return of 5% instead of annuity return of 10% followed by the Board. 2. Board has not provided any compensation to the claimant towards the diminution of land value. Needless to point out, when overhead 110 KV electric line is drawn through a property, not only the area underneath such line but sufficient clearing area has also to be provided to avoid mishap and to ensure free flow of energy without any obstruction. Claimant shown to be having only an extent of 10 cents. The court below C.R.P No.300 OF 2008 Page numbers on the basis of the commission report found that 5 cents of his property is injuriously affected by the drawing of the overhead line. Land value has been assessed on the basis of the evidence let in at Rs.8,000/- per cent. The court has fixed injurious affection at 20% of that land value. Grievance espoused by the learned counsel for the Board is that such fixation is excessive. I cannot agree. 5 cents out of 10 cents of the property of the claimant has been rendered practically useless by the drawing of overhead line. He cannot put up any construction or grow any high yielding trees underneath the area covered by the line or nearby. In such circumstances, fixation of diminution of value at 20% with respect to the centage value fixed cannot be termed as unreasonable. That being so, I find no interference with the order passed by the District Judge is called for and so much so, the delay petition and the revision are dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv