IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 CRP.No. 485 of 2010() --------------------- OP(EA)NO.107/2005 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY SECRETARY,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- (*) 1. GEORGE,AGED 84, KANDANTHU THARA HOUSE, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. (DIED) (*) 2. PHILOMINA,AGED 79,KANDANTHU THARA HOUSE,AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK.(DIED) 3. METTILDA,AGED 61, KANDANTHU THARA HOUSE,AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. 4. ELIZABATH,AGED 59, KANDANTHU THARA HOUSE,AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. 5. AUSTIN,AGED 56, KANDANTHU THARA HOUSE,AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. 6. TOMY,AGED 54, KANDANTHU THARA HOUSE,AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. 7. JOSY,AGED 51, KANDANTHU THARA HOUSE,AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. CRP NO.485/2010 2 8. BONARIYA,AGED 46, KANDANTHU THARA HOUSE,AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. 9. BABU,AGED 44, KANDANTHU THARA HOUSE,AROOR VILLAGE CHERTHALA TALUK. 10. POWLY,AGED 42, KANDANTHU THARA HOUSE,AROOR VILLAGE CHERTHALA TALUK. 11. VINNY,AGED 37, KANDANTHU THARA HOUSE,AROOR VILLAGE CHERTHALA TALUK. ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE FOR R3 TO R10 (*)RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE NO MORE. THEIR LRS ARE OTHERWISE ON RECORD.HENCE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE DELETED FROM ARRAY OF PARTIES AS PER ORDER DATED 27.07.2011 ON IA NO.1642/2011. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2011, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 23 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P. Nos.485 of 2010 & 23 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2011. ORDER Parties are referred to as petitioners and respondent as in C.R.P.No.23 of 2011 for convenience. 2. These civil revisions arise from the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha on March 6, 2010 in O.P.(EA) No.107 of 2005.Original petitioner filed O.P.(EA) No.107 of 2005 before the learned District Judge on 19.08.2005 claiming additional compensation for improvements cut and removed from his property and for diminished land value consequent to the drawal of 110 KV line along his property. Respondent – the Kerala State Electricity Board awarded a total sum of `8,912/- as compensation for value of improvements cut and removed while awarding no compensation for diminished land value. Original petitioner claimed compensation on both the counts. Learned District Judge awarded a further sum of `43,884.79 as compensation for improvements cut and removed from the property and `29,340/- as compensation for diminished land value on account of drawal of the line. The award is unsatisfactory to both sides and accordingly both sides have filed these civil revisions. C.R.P.No.485 of 2010 is filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board challenging the award passed and C.R.P.No.23 of 2011 is filed by the legal CRP Nos.485/2010 & 23/2011 2 heirs of petitioner claiming further compensation. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners has contended that compensation awarded for diminished land value is not just and proper. It is pointed out that relevant records were not properly considered by the learned District Judge. Reliance is placed on the copy of assignment deed dated June 12, 2006 whereby the Manorama Vision acquired six cents at the rate of `2,33,000/- percent. It is also submitted by learned counsel that report of the Advocate Commissioner as regards improvements of the locality has not been properly considered by the learned District Judge. 4. In response it is contended by learned standing counsel for respondent that additional compensation awarded for value of improvements itself is exorbitant. Learned District Judge ought not to have awarded compensation for diminished land value in the absence of any evidence to show that the drawal of line injuriously affected the land in question. 5. So far as additional compensation awarded for value of improvements is concerned, it is not disputed that six yielding coconut trees and one coconut sampling were cut and removed from the property of original petitioner. There is no dispute regarding the detailed valuation statement and mahazar prepared by the respondent regarding age and yield of improvements and value of its produces. Petitioners (legal representatives of original petitioner) filed a revised valuation statement in the court below showing the additional compensation payable for value of improvements based on the annuity factor at 10% and 8%. Respondent has adopted 10% as annuity factor while according CRP Nos.485/2010 & 23/2011 3 to the petitioners it should have been 8%. Learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance on the decision in Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy and others (AIR 2002 SC 1423) and contended that the annuity factor has to be taken as 8%. I do not find reason to disagree. In the circumstances additional compensation payable for value of improvements was fixed as `43,884.79. Having regard to the above circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with that part of the order. 6. What remained is whether compensation was payable for diminished land value and if so the amount awarded is just and reasonable. The Advocate Commissioner has reported that the area affected by drawal of line is 3.260 cents which is not very much disputed before me. So far as land value is concerned, Advocate Commissioner has rated it as between `50,000/- and `75,000/- per cent. It is true that the Advocate Commissioner has made reference only to Ext.A1, assignment deed to assess the land value. As per Ext.A1, the Manorama Vision has acquired 2.43 Ares at the rate of `2,33,000/- per cent. That document is of the year 2006 while tree cutting in the present case was in the year 2000. Therefore, Ext.A1 as such cannot be taken into account. Moreover, none connected with Ext.A1 was examined before learned District Judge to state under what circumstances the purchase was made. Merely based on Ext.A1 land value as in the year 2000 cannot be fixed. But, it is seen from the report of the Advocate Commissioner that the land is situated in a somewhat commercially important place. Advocate Commissioner reported that NH 47 is situated about 700 metres away from the land in question and CRP Nos.485/2010 & 23/2011 4 around that distance there is Cochin By-pass, Manorama Vision Office, a hospital, co-operative bank, High School, Church, Post Office and Federal Bank. These circumstances show importance of the locality. Learned counsel for petitioners has also pressed into service Annexure-A, copy of order dated March 5, 1999 of this Court in C.R.P.No.1179 of 1998 where land value as in the year 1993 was fixed as `21,500/- per cent. Considering these aspects of the matter I am inclined to think that the sum of `30,000/- fixed by the learned District is towards the lower side and there could be some increase in the land value, having regard to the circumstances which I have stated above and also bearing in mind the current land value. Having regard to these facts and circumstances I am inclined to fix land value as `40,000/- per cent (bearing in mind that tree cutting was in the year 2000). So far as compensation for diminished land value is concerned, due to drawal of 110 KV line land value is diminished as it would affect cultivation of permanent crops and construction of building. In the circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with the percentage of diminution fixed by learned District Judge. That brings compensation payable for diminished land value to ` 39,120/- (40000 x 3.260 x 30/100) (as against `29,340/- awarded by learned District Judge). Thus total additional compensation payable to the petitioners come to `83,004.79. 7. Learned District Judge has granted 6% interest from the date of cutting of trees till its realisation which in view of current rate of interest I do not find reason to interfere. Resultantly these civil revisions are disposed of in the following lines: CRP Nos.485/2010 & 23/2011 5 i. C.R.P.No.485 of 2010 is dismissed. ii. C.R.P.No.23 of 2011 is allowed in part to the extent that additional compensation payable to the petitioners is modified as `83,004.79 (Rupees eightythree thousand and four and seventynine paise only)with interest as awarded by learned District Judge. All pending Interlocutory Applications in both the cases will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks