IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 1123 of 2007() ---------------------- OPELE.244/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------------- ANNAMMA ALEXANDER, KOTTARATHIL PARAMBU, CHERUTHANA P.O., ANARI. BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- POWR GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, KAYAMKULAM TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OFFICE, CHOOLATHERUVU, KAYAMKULAM. ADV. SMT.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- C.R.P No.1123 OF 2007 -------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March 2010 ORDER Revision is filed by the claimant who had filed an application for enhanced compensation under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act as O.P (Ele.) No.244 of 2002 before the Additional District Court, Mavelikara. Claim was raised towards the loss and injury suffered on account of the drawing of overhead electric lines through his property by the respondent, namely, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Corporation. The Corporation, towards the loss suffered by the claimant had paid only a sum of Rs.330/-. Claimant in his application sought for an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,30,000/-. The learned District Judge after enquiry passed the impugned order awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.17,500/-. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Admittedly the property through which the lines were drawn is a paddy field. It is also seen from the impugned order that a tower was erected in the paddy field covering an area of 758 square metres. Though the claimant had sought enhanced compensation, it is seen, no commission was taken out to assist the court to determine the C.R.P No.1123 OF 2007 Page numbers area effected by the drawing of overhead lines. Other than the oral evidence of the claimant examined as PW1 in which she asserted that the property has a centage value of Rs.25,000/-, no worthmentioning material was produced before the court to fix the value for the purpose of assessing the compensation payable. The learned District Judge fixing the centage value of the property at Rs.2,500/- and taking note that a tower was erected in the property concluded that at least 10 cents of the property had been injuriously affected. Forming such a conclusion it was further held that such injurious affection can be determined as 70%. In that view of the matter, compensation payable was reassessed and an enhanced compensation of Rs.17,500/- was awarded to the claimant. The property through which electric lines were drawn is a paddy field necessarily has to be taken into account in adjudging the compensation payable. Normally when 220 KV lines drawn through a paddy field it is unlikely to affect the paddy cultivation underneath those lines. True, erection of a tower in the paddy filed would cause some inconvenience and also hardship to the farmer in tilling the land. But even underneath the tower he can carry out paddy cultivation. But the fact that the property is a paddy field alone cannot be taken into account in adjudging the compensation payable. That has to be looked into with reference to its proximity with other properties C.R.P No.1123 OF 2007 Page numbers and its potential value. The learned District Judge, in the present case, for the reason that no commission was taken out by the claimant, has arbitrarily assessed and determined the centage value and also the diminution value. Other than the evidence of the claimant that the property is having a value of Rs.25,000/-, there was nothing in evidence reflecting the true value of the property. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on “K.S.E.B v Levisha ((2007) 6 SCC 792)” contended that an opportunity may be provided to the claimant to establish what exactly was the value of the property when the lines were drawn. It is further contended by the counsel that the lines were drawn over the middle of the paddy filed and its potential value by virtue of the lines drawn has been drastically affected. As the order passed by the District Judge shows that assessment of value has been made without any data but only on surmises, I find, in view of the guidelines enunciated by the apex court in Levisha's case, an opportunity has to be provided to the petitioner for establishing her claim for enhanced compensation. However as it is noticed that there was omission on the part of the claimant to take out a commission and to produce relevant materials, earlier the claimant will not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation, if any, adjusted and found payable by court on further enquiry. Setting aside the impugned order, the court C.R.P No.1123 OF 2007 Page numbers below is directed to consider the matter afresh and dispose the same taking note of the principles laid down in Levisha's case and in accordance with law. Compensation, if any, paid by the Corporation under the impugned order shall be taken into account in case any additional compensation is found payable. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 01.06.2010. Court below shall give the petition top priority in hearing, and also to make every endeavour to dispose it as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv