IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 CRP.No. 278 of 2008() --------------------- OP(EL).10/2001 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: -------------------------- SANTHOSH, S/O.RAJAPPAN, ERAPPANAL HOUSE, MUNIYARA P.O., KARIMANA MURI, KONNATHADY VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.278 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this 01st day of June, 2010 ORDER This revision is in challenge of order dated 16-08-2005 in O.P. (El.)No.10 of 2001 of the court of learned Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha. Through property of respondent, for the purpose of drawal of 110KV line 415 numbers of eucalyptus trees of which 399 were aged 3 years and 16 were aged 5 years were cut and petitioner, based on Ext.B1, detailed valuation statement (DVS) awarded a sum of Rs.20,760. Claim of respondent is that compensation awarded is low and that no amount was awarded towards diminished land value. Respondent moved the learned Additional District Judge claiming a total sum of Rs. 7,09,600/- by way of enhanced compensation. Petition was opposed by the petitioner contending that compensation already paid is reasonable and that no amount is payable by way of compensation for diminished land value since seasonal crops can be cultivated in the land in question. Respondent examined PW1, Deputy Manager of the Forestry Department, Hindustan Newsprint Factory. He stated that timber of eucalyptus trees in the age group of 3 to 5 years is used for making pulp and that its contract price during 1997-2000 C.R.P.No.278 of 2008 : 2 : was Rs.100-150 depending on the weight by kilogram. PW1 also stated that from the same stump timber could be cut thrice as the stump will be a warehouse giving nourishment for further growth. Respondent gave evidence as PW2. The Assistant Engineer of the petitioner was examined as DW1 and he proved Ext.B1. In Ext.B1 compensation was awarded for tree cutting at the rate of Rs.50/- tree. Learned District Judge found that for two cutting, respondent is entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per timber and accordingly found compensation payable for 415 eucalyptus trees as Rs.41,500/-. 10% was deducted for maintenance and other expenses. The balance came to Rs.37350/- of which, deducting the sum of Rs.20700/- already paid additional compensation payable to the respondent was fixed as Rs.16,590/-. 2. Next claim is for diminished land value. PWs.1 and 2 said about the importance of locality. It came in evidence that property is situated on the side of Muniyara-Chemmannar PWD road which admits vehicular traffic. Though PW2 claimed that value of the land is Rs.5,00,000/- that was not accepted. CW1 is the Advocate Commissioner who submitted Ext.C1, report. Report states that property is situated near Munniyara junction and local enquiry by the Commissioner revealed that land value is Rs.5,000/- per cent but Commissioner had not verified any document. Hence considering the relevant circumstances and importance of the C.R.P.No.278 of 2008 : 3 : locality learned District Judge has fixed land value at Rs.2,000/- per cent. 10% compensation was taken for diminished land value. 3. So far as extent of land is concerned, it has to be noted that 415 numbers of eucalyptus trees were cut which gives some idea of the land affected. It was not disputed before the learned Additional District Judge that land affected is 80 cents. Based on that Rs.16,000/- was awarded as compensation for diminished land value. Additional compensation awarded to the petitioner is Rs.32,950/-. Interest is awarded at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 4. It is contended by learned counsel that enhanced compensation awarded for value of improvements and compensation awarded for diminished land value is excessive. I have gone through the order under challenge and considering the circumstances involved and evidence which I have stated above I am not inclined to think that amount awarded is exorbitant or is in violation of the acceptable principles of law so that this court is required to interfere in exercise of its revisional power. Interest awarded is also not excessive. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order under challenge. Resultantly the revision petition fails and it is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-