IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 695 of 2004() --------------------- OP.123/1995 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 2ND PETITIONER: --------------------------------- MOHANAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. LATE M.S. NEELAKANDAN ELAYATH, MAPPOMPILLY ILLOM, VADAKKUMBAGOM KARA, EDAPPALLY NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.N.NEELAKANDHAN NAMBOODIRI SRI.P.S.NARAYANA RAJA RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT: ------------------------ THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, BY ITS SECRETARY, ELECTRICITY BOARD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 695 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 O R D E R The claimant in O.P.(Ele.)No.123 of 1995 on the file of the IInd Additional District Court, Ernakulam is the revision petitioner. He is aggrieved by the inadequacy of the quantum of additional compensation awarded by the court below. The revision petitioner claimed compensation for the trees cut and removed by the respondent/Kerala State Electricity Board. In addition to the above, he also claimed compensation for diminution in land value at the rate of 60% of the market value of the property. The respondent/Board awarded Rs.1,60,662 and the same was paid on 22.2.1992. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that an electric tower is installed in the property for which an extent of 1.75 cents was completely utilsed and, therefore, the revision C.R.P.NO.695/2004 2 petitioner is entitled to get separate additional compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards value of 1.75 cents of land. In the revised valuation statement filed by the claimant, he claimed a sum o Rs.1,46,185.02 as additional compensation. He also claimed compensation for diminution in land value , interest etc. The court below following the dictum laid down in the decision reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B., 2000(1)K.L.T.542 determined the compensation payable for the trees cut and removed. The revised valuation statement field by the claimant was accepted by the court below and the total compensation for yielding trees was worked out at Rs.3,01,842.04 and the balance compensation as per the said calculation was rounded to Rs.1,46,185/-. 3. The trial court noted the fact that the total extent of property is 51.894 cents out of which 15.338 cents is paddy field and the remaining is garden land. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is entitled to additional compensation towards the space occupied by the electric tower which is 1.75 cents in extent. The court below noticed the fact that capitalised value was given in respect of the property where the electric tower is installed and rightly rejected the claim in this regard. The claim for diminution in land value for the property over which the electric line is drawn was negatived by the C.R.P.NO.695/2004 3 court below stating that the line is drawn over the wet land and not over the garden land and that the wet land can be cultivated with paddy and, therefore, no loss was caused to the revision petitioner. According to the court below, drawing of electric line over the wet land will not in any way affect the cultivation of the said land with paddy. At the same time, the contention of the revision petitioner that he was entitled to diminution in land value in respect of the remaining 36.556 cents of garden land was not considered by the court below. It is reported in Ext.C1 commission report that an extent of 36.556 cents of dry land and 15.338 cents of wet land are injuriously affected due to the drawing of the electric line. In the sketch attached to the report also it seen that the electric line is drawn over the wet as well as dry land. 4. In the above circumstances, it is necessary to examine the contention of the revision petitioner as to whether he is entitled to get any amount as compensation for diminution in land value. The court below is, therefore, directed to consider the said question alone afresh. In the result, the order under challenge is set aside and the court below is directed to pass fresh orders after considering the sole question remitted for consideration within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.R.P.NO.695/2004 4 The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P.NO.695/2004 5 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NO. 695/2004 O R D E R 2ND JUNE, 2008