IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 434 of 2007() --------------------- OP(E.A.)NO.77/2002 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------- KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 40 YEARS, MANNEDUKKUM VILAYIL, KARIMULACKAL MURI, CHUNNAKKARA VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER --------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, LOCAL OFFICE AT NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPPAD. ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2011, THE COURT ON 25.11.2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. ----------------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.434 of 2007 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 25th November, 2011. O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner in O.P.(E.A.) No.77/2002 on the file of the Additional District Court, Alappuzha. That O.P. was originally filed before the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara as O.P.(E.A.)44/98 on 7.3.1988. The respondent herein is the first respondent in that O.P., which was filed by the revision petitioner under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act. The averments in the O.P. are briefly as follows : The petitioner is the owner in possession of 101 cents of land comprised in survey No.275/12 and 22 of Chunakkara village. The first respondent Power Grid Corporation, for the purpose of drawing 220 KV electric line cut and removed several trees, both yielding and non-yielding from the property of the petitioner. The compensation awarded at Rs.1,68,966/- is too low and unreasonable. The method of valuation adopted by the respondent is arbitrary and illegal. The respondent has not taken into consideration the future yield from the trees and importance of the locality, in fixing the compensation. The 60 CRP 434/07 2 cents of land has become completely useless by the drawing of electric line. The market value of the land is Rs.40,000/- per cent. So the petitioner is entitled to get enhanced compensation for the cutting of trees and compensation for diminution of land value as claimed in the petition. 2. The respondent filed objection contending as follows : The compensation awarded is just and reasonable. The valuation and mahazar have been prepared in the presence of the petitioner. All the relevant factors such as future yield from the trees, market value of the land in the locality and the diminution of land value have been taken into consideration for fixing the compensation. The petitioner's land is not injuriously affected by the drawing of electric line. The petitioner can cultivate seasonal crops in the property. The enhanced compensation for cutting of trees and the amount for diminution in land value claimed is not allowable. 3. The Additional District Court, Alappuzha, as per award dated 21.7.2003 allowed Rs.1,46,675/- with 7.5% interest. The enhanced compensation allowed for yielding trees CRP 434/07 3 is Rs.83,675/- and the compensation for diminution in land value allowed is Rs.63,000/-. The respondent Power Grid Corporation, aggrieved by the above award, filed CRP 483/04, and this Court, as per judgment dated 4.7.2005 confirmed the compensation awarded for trees cut but set aside the compensation awarded for diminution of land value and remanded the matter giving an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence regarding the diminution of land value. After remand, PW1 was recalled and examined and no further evidence was adduced. 4. The learned District Judge, on considering the evidence found that in the absence of any acceptable evidence, the claim for compensation for alleged diminution in land value cannot be allowed and Rs.83,675/- was awarded as enhanced compensation for cutting of trees, which was already confirmed by this Court. Against that order, the petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. CRP 434/07 4 6. Before the Additional District Court, the petitioner produced Ext.A4, which is a copy of the common judgment in LAR 40/93, 41/93 and 104/93 dated 20.11.2001 of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara. When the petitioner was examined as PW1, he deposed that Ext.A4 property is situated 2 Km. away from his property and that Ext.A4 property is near Karimugal junction in K.P. Road. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the property in the present case is similarly situated like Ext.A4 property and the land value fixed in Ext.A4 award is Rs.7,859/- per cent. Since the present property is more or less similarly situated as Ext.A4 property, I am of the view that assessing the value of the property as Rs.5,000/- per cent would be just and reasonable. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that from this property, 26 yielding coconut trees and other trees were cut and removed for drawing 220 KV. Electric line. Considering this aspect of the matter, I am of the view that 30 cents can be taken as the area injuriously affected by the drawing of electric line and 30% can CRP 434/07 5 be assessed as diminution in land value. Calculating on that basis, Rs.45,000/- can be awarded as compensation for diminution in land value. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part and the order in O.P.(EA) 77/2002 on the file of the Additional District Court, Alappuzha is modified and the petitioner is allowed to realize a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards compensation for diminution in land value from the respondent Power Grid Corporation, together with 6% interest on that amount from the date of O.P. till the date of realization, in addition to the amount already awarded towards compensation for cutting of trees. Sd/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. tgs (True copy) P.S. to Judge.