IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 CRP.No. 718 of 2008() --------------------- OP(ELE)91/2004 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- ABDUL JALEEL, S/O, MUHAMMED HASSAN, KALUTHARA VEEDU, PUNNAPRA.P.O, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.C.K.SHERIN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.718 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 19th August, 2009 ORDER The revision is directed against the order dated 26.2.2008 in O.P.(Ele.)No.91 of 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha. The above O.P. was filed under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act by the respondent in the revision claiming enhanced compensation for the overhead electric lines drawn through his property by the petitioner, a statutory authority, the Kerala State Electricity Board. The parties hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' and 'the claimant' for the sake of convenience. For the drawing of 110KV high tension line of Punnapra-Edathua, the Board cut and removed certain trees from the property of the claimant, through which the overhead lines passed through, and towards compensation thereof, a sum of Rs.6000/- was awarded. The claimant contended that the compensation awarded was inadequate and unreasonable. On the other hand, according to the Board, adequate compensation was paid to the claimant. An Advocate Commissioner conducted a local inspection, assessed the compensation payable, and filed C1 report and C1(a) plan. No oral evidence was adduced. A1, copy of a sale CRP No.718/08 - 2 - deed, and A2, copy of the detailed valuation statement, were exhibited. The learned District Judge, after examining the materials and hearing the counsel on both sides, found that the claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.15,398/- which was awarded allowing the claimant to realise that sum with 6% interest from the date of cutting of the trees till realisation. Correctness of the enhanced compensation so awarded is challenged in the revision by the Board. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Perusing the order impugned, I find that the Board has assessed annuity return in respect of the trees cut and removed at 10% and on recalculating it at 5% in accordance with the legal principles enunciated by this court in awarding of compensation in such cases it was found that a sum of Rs.12,232/- instead of Rs.5834/- as assessed by the Board was payable to the claimant. I find while applying the legal principles for assessment of the compensation towards trees cut and removed and also diminution of land value by the drawing of the overhead lines, the learned District Judge has taken note of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [ (2007) 6 S.C.C. 792] which to some extent has modified the principles laid down by this court in CRP No.718/08 - 3 - Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542(FB). I find no reason to interfere with the enhanced compensation provided for the trees cut and removed calculating such compensation on the annuity return at 5%. 3. The main grievance canvassed by the learned counsel for the Board to assail the order of the learned District Judge is that the land value assessed over the property of the claimant to determine compensation payable towards diminution of land value is excessive and unreasonable. The learned District Judge has assessed the land value at Rs.10,000/- per cent after examining all relevant circumstances and materials including A1 document and the commission report. Value shown in A1 document was very much on the higher side and as the property covered therein was situate two K.M. away from the property of the claimant, the value shown therein was not accepted. Property of the claimant is situated half K.M. away from the National Highway and such other relevant factors were taken into account by the District Judge to fix the market value of that property at Rs.10,000/- per cent. No circumstance whatsoever has been brought to my notice to show that the value so fixed was on the higher side. A1 document shows that the property covered CRP No.718/08 - 4 - therein situate two K.M. away from National Highway fetched more than Rs.25,000/- per cent. I am inclined to hold that the land value fixed in respect of the claimant's property by the District Judge at Rs.10,000/- is reasonable. Injurious affectation by drawing of the line was limited to 3 cents by the learned District Judge noting half of the claimant's property remained barren and uncultivated and so much so, he was not entitled to the claim raised for injurious affectation for the whole property. The extent of land for which compensation for injurious affectation was fixed by the learned District Judge, in the given facts of the case, deserve only to be accepted when no circumstance is shown to take a different view in the matter. I find that the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge does not suffer from any infirmity and on the contrary, the enhanced compensation allowed is found to be reasonable and not at all excessive. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE