IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 CRP.No. 1189 of 2004() --------------------------------- ELE(OP).103/1998 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, N. PARAVUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT IN OP -------------------------------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN OP ----------------------------------------------------- ABDUL SALAM S/O. LATE ABDUL RAHIMAN, THENATTIL HOUSE, PUTHUVASSERY KARA, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY-NAZEEMA W/O. LATE ABDUL RAHIMAN,THENATTIL HOUSE, PUTHUVASSERY KARA, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE. R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.1189 of 2004 --------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of October, 2011 ORDER For drawal of 110Kv line, 12 yielding coconut trees, two nutmeg trees, a jack tree and a few other non yielding trees were removed. Compensation granted by the petitioner was felt insufficient. Respondent sought enhancement in O.P(Ele).No.103 of 1998 of the Court of learned Additional District Judge, N.Paravur. The request was allowed in part by the learned Additional District Judge and a total sum of `.66341/- was awarded as enhanced compensation. That order is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner/K.S.E.B has contended that compensation awarded for yielding and non yielding improvements is excessive. It is also contended by the learned counsel that compensation awarded for diminished land value is excessive in that centage value fixed by the learned Additional District Judge is excessive. 3. Learned counsel for respondent has submitted that the enhanced compensation awarded is reasonable, that amount was deposited by the petitioner and withdrawn by the C.R.P.No.1189 of 2004 -: 2 :- respondent. 4. Respondent gave evidence as PW1 and stated that the coconut trees gave 250 nuts per tree per year. It is seen from the order under challenge that `.4/- was taken as the price of coconut. The coconut trees were aged 15 years. Ext.C1 is the report of the Advocate Commissioner where the Commissioner reported that yield per coconut tree per year, is 80 nuts. The future age of the trees assessed by the Commissioner is 40 years. It is based on that report that learned Additional District Judge found that compensation payable per coconut tree is `.6,177.24/-. 5. So far as yielding nutmeg trees are concerned, based on Ext.C1, report the yield was fixed as 150nuts per year per tree and price of nutmeg was taken as `.1/- per nutmeg. The future age of the trees as assessed by the Commissioner is 20 years and accordingly compensation of `.2568.90/- was awarded. 6. For the yielding jack tree, `.1,522.32/- was awarded based on Ext.C1, report. For the non yielding trees enhancement awarded is `.1,000/-. 7. So far as the request for payment of compensation for diminished land value is concerned, respondent examined PW2, a neighbour and proved Ext.A1, title deed in respect of 15 cents. It C.R.P.No.1189 of 2004 -: 3 :- came out in evidence that PW2 had sold another two cents for `.4,300/- per cent in the year 1991. Learned Additional District Judge, having regard to the evidence of PW2 and Ext.A1 took the land value as `.10,000/- at the time of tree cutting. 50% was taken as compensation payable for diminished land value. The land affected was taken as 2½ cents. 8. Assuming that 50% of the land value fixed towards diminished land value is a bit excessive I must bear in mind that total extent of land affected and taken into account by the learned Additional District Judge is only 2½ cents in spite of the fact that 12 yielding coconut trees and other trees were cut and removed. Taking that also into account I am not inclined to think that compensation awarded is excessive so that the revisional Court is required to interfere. Civil revision is dismissed. Sd/- (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-