IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 CRP.NO. 383 OF 2011() ----------------------------------- OPELE.77/2008 OF II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): IST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REGISTERED OFFICER AT B-9,KUTTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA,KUTTAVARIYA SARAI,NEW DELHI-110 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- LEELA.K.NAIR @ PADMAVATHY AMMA,@ LEELA, AGED 55 YEARS,D/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR,RESIDING AT L.K.BHAVAN,ALUNTHARA,VENJARAMOODU.P.O,NELLANADU VILLAGE,NEDUMANGADU TALUK,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695541. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.383 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 26th day of August, 2011 O R D E R First respondent in O.P(Ele.) No.77 of 2008 of the court of learned Additional District Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram is the petitioner before me challenging enhanced compensation awarded to the respondent. Compensation originally awarded was `1,23,250/-. Respondent claimed additional compensation of `25,44,750/- on various counts. Respondent gave evidence as P.W.1 and proved Exts.A1 to A4. Petitioner examined R.W.1 and proved Exts.B1 to B7. Exhibits B2 and B2(a) are the valuation statements. For value of improvements learned District Judge awarded enhanced compensation of `21,354.23. `33,000/- was awarded as enhanced compensation for diminution in land value. Thus a total compensation of `54,384.23 was awarded as enhanced compensation which is under challenge. Learned counsel submitted that additional compensation has been awarded without any basis. It is also contended that there is no basis for fixation of land value for awarding compensation for diminution in land value. 2. Exhibits B2 and B2(a), valuation statements have C.R.P. No.383 of 2011 -: 2 :- been accepted by the learned Additional District Judge. Exhibits B2 and B2(a) reveal that 94 yielding rubber trees, 3 coconut trees, 1 jack tree and 165 pineapple plants were cut and removed for drawal of the 220 KV electric line. Learned Additional District Judge also accepted the age, yield and price of the products fixed by petitioner. It is only that instead of 10% annuity adopted by petitioner, learned Additional District Judge has taken 8 as the multiplier and found additional compensation payable for value of improvements as `21,354.25. Since enhancement is only based on annuity factor for which learned Additional District Judge relied on the decision in Airport Authority v. Sathyagopal Rao (AIR 2002 SC 1423), I do not find reason to interfere with the additional compensation awarded for value of improvements at the instance of petitioner. 3. Next claim is for compensation for diminution in land value. 220 KV line is drawn over the property of the respondent. There could be no doubt that cultivation of permanent crops and construction of building are prevented. Hence the land value will be diminished. Learned Additional District Judge has fixed land value at `3,000/- per cent which cannot be said to be exorbitant calling for interference in revision. The basis for C.R.P. No.383 of 2011 -: 3 :- fixation of compensation is taken as 20% of the land value which also is not excessive. From the materials on record learned Additional District Judge found that 55 cents is affected by the drawal of the line. Having regard to the nature and extent of improvements cut and removed, it cannot be said that extent of affected land fixed is without basis or excessive. Thus compensation payable for diminution in land value is fixed as `33,000/- and that brought the total additional compensation payable to `54,354.23. Learned Additional District Judge has also awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of cutting till payment. Having regard to the relevant aspects of the matter including extent of land affected I do not find reason to interfere with the additional compensation or rate of interest awarded by the learned Additional District Judge at the instance of petitioner. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. All Interlocutory Applications shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv