IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 420 of 2008() --------------------- OPELE.47/1996 of ADDL.D.C. ,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP; BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STASTE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. PULIKOOL ABOOBACKER, SC, KSEB SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER --------------------------------------------- ST.AUGUSTINE CHURCH, AROOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR, FR.JOY SATHAMPURACKAL ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP FOR R1 SRI.N.J.ROSHER FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2011, THE COURT ON 28/11/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS J., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No.420 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of November, 2011 ORDER This C.R.P. is filed by the respondent K.S.E.B in O.P.(Ele.) No.47 of 1996 on the file of Addl. District Court, Alapuzha. Respondent herein was the petitioner in that O.P. which was filed under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraphic Act, Sec.51 of the Indian Electricity Act and Sec.42 of the Electricity Supply Act claiming additional compensation for the trees cut from his property for drawing electric line and also for compensation for diminution in land value. 2. In that O.P. it was alleged that the petitioner is the absolute owner of 1 acre 27 cents of property in Sy.Nos. 406/23, 411/5A, 411/58 of Aroor village. He is in possession and enjoyment of that property. For drawing Aroor - Mattancherry 110 KV electric line through the petitioner's property, 9 coconut trees, 3 coconut C.R.P. No.420 OF 2008 :2: saplings, 15 arecanut trees, 1 anjily tree and one panachi tree were cut down from that property. A sum of Rs.27,841/- was awarded to the petitioner by way of compensation and the same was received by him under protest on 29.11.1995. The compensation awarded was not fair and reasonable. It was fixed without assessing the actual yield and other material details. The method of calculation adopted for fixing the compensation is not correct. By drawing the electric line across the property of the petitioner 25 cents of the property was rendered useless. It has considerably affected the market value of the property. The market value in the locality would be Rs.30,000/- per cent. A tower was constructed in the property and thereby 3 cents of property has become completely useless. Hence the petitioner is entitled to get at least Rs.4 lakhs as additional compensation. 3. Respondent filed objection refuting the claim for additional compensation. It is contended that the compensation was awarded after taking into consideration of all the material facts such as yield from the trees, productive life of the trees, average price of C.R.P. No.420 OF 2008 :3: the coconut and the other usufructs for the last 10 years. The utility of the property is not affected by the drawing of the electric line. No amount is liable to be awarded for diminution in land value. 4. Before the Addl. District Court on the side of the petitioner, one witness was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 and Exts.C1 and C2 were marked. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced from the side of the counter petitioner. 5. After considering the evidence, the Addl. District Court vide order dated 24.6.2002 awarded an amount of Rs.50,760/- as additional compensation to the petitioner, out of which an amount of Rs.6,960/- was awarded as enhanced compensation for the trees cut from his property and Rs.43,800/- as diminution of land value. Petitioner preferred a revision challenging that order before this Court as C.R.P. No. 201 of 2003 and this Court vide order dt.27.1.2006 accepted the finding as to the compensation awarded for the trees cut and the matter was remanded for a fresh consideration with regard to the amount of compensation to be awarded for diminution in land value. C.R.P. No.420 OF 2008 :4: 6. After remand, the commissioner who prepared Exts.C1 and C2 was examined as PW2 and one of the attesting witnesses in Ext.A2 sale deed was examined as PW3. PW1 deposed that 20 cents of property was rendered useless by the drawing of the electric line through the property. According to him the electric line was drawn through the middle of the property and that it is not possible to have any cultivation beneath the electric line and to construct any building. PW1 deposed that the land value of the locality is Rs.20,000/- per cent and that industrial estate, market, church, High School, post-office etc. are situated within a distance of 300 meters from the respondent's property. 7. The advocate commissioner who inspected the property and filed Ext.C1 report and Ext.C2 additional report was examined as PW2. He deposed that 18.25 cents of property was rendered useless by the drawing of the electric line. It was stated by him that the electric line was drawn through the northern portion of the respondent's property. Considering these aspects of the matter, the learned Additional District Judge assessed the percentage of C.R.P. No.420 OF 2008 :5: diminution in land value due to the drawing of electric line as 40%. 8. For proving the land value of the respondent's property, the respondent produced Ext.A1 sale deed of the year 1991. The percentage of land value as in Ext.A1 is Rs.17,000/-. PWs1 to 3 deposed that the respondent's property is situated in an important locality. PW3 has stated that it lies near to the industrial estate at Aroor. The learned Addl. District Judge taking into consideration Ext.A1 and importance of the locality, assessed value of the petitioner's property as Rs.10,000/- per cent. Calculating on that basis, the learned Addl. District Judge assessed diminution in land value as Rs.73,000/-. Since the Addl. District Judge has awarded only a reasonable compensation for the diminution in land value, I find no reason to interfere with the order. Accordingly this C.R.P. is dismissed as it is without any merits. M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/