IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 632 of 2008(A) ---------------------- OP(ELE.) 396/2002 of ADDL.D.C. ,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------- 1. ANIRUDHAN, ASWATHI BHAVAN, ERIKAVU PO., KARTHIKAPPALLY. 2. LEELAMMA, DO.DO. ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN FOR R1-2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2011, THE COURT ON 22/11/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS J., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No.632 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011 ORDER This C.R.P. is filed by the respondent in O.P.(Ele.) No.396 of 2002 on the file of the Addl. District Court, Alappuzha. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the petitioners in that O.P. which was filed under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act and under Section 42 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act for awarding enhanced compensation for the trees cut and removed from the property of the petitioners. 2. The case of the petitioners in O.P. is briefly as follows. The petitioners are the owner in possession of 25 cents of property in survey No.609/15 of Kumarapuram village. For the purpose of drawing Kayamkulam- Pallam 220 KV electric line across the said C.R.P. No.632 of 2008 :2: property, 71 various types of trees and 61 sapplings of various trees were cut and removed and awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,43,743/-. The compensation awarded is not adequate and reasonable. The coconut trees, arecanut trees and mango trees cut and removed were good yielding trees. They would have given yield for a considerably long time. But the actual yield and the future yielding years were not taken into account in assessing the compensation. The compensation awarded to the non yielding tees and sapplings is also not reasonable. Due to the drawl of the electric line, 25 cents of property has become completely useless. This property cannot be put to any use. The value and utility to the extent of 90% has been lost. The property is situated 160 mts. away from the Kollam-Alappuzha N.H. There are certain public institutions situated nearby the property. The property would have fetched the market value at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per cent at the time of cutting of the trees. But no compensation was awarded due to the diminished utility. C.R.P. No.632 of 2008 :3: 3. The respondents filed counter stating as follows: The compensation has been fixed based on detailed valuation statement prepared by the Revenue officials. As the compensation awarded is fair and reasonable, no interference is called for. Neither the land value has diminished nor the utility has been decreased as a result of drawing of electric line. The property can be used for agricultural purposes and also for construction of buildings. The land value claimed is excessive and the additional compensation claimed cannot be granted. 4. Before the Addl. District Court PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to 3 were marked. The learned Addl. District Judge on considering the evidence allowed the O.P. in part and an award was passed allowing the petitioners to realise a sum of Rs.1,63,376/- with 6% interest from the date of cutting of trees till the realisation from the respondent. Against that order the respondent filed this C.R.P. 5. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. C.R.P. No.632 of 2008 :4: 6. At the time of argument the learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised the following contentions: (i) The Court below committed a grave mistake in holding that the respondents are entitled to get compensation towards diminution in land value. (ii) The additional compensation awarded by the Court below is not based on valid oral or documentary evidence adduced before it and on that sole ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. (iii) The Court below committed a grave mistake in granting an additional compensation of Rs.1,18,376.18 towards the trees cut and removed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order under challenge. 8. There is no dispute regarding the number of trees cut as shown in Ext.A2 copy of mahazar. Ext.A3 is the detailed valuation statement. Exts.A2 and A3 would show that 33 coconut trees, 9 arecanut trees and certain other non yielding trees like poovarasu, C.R.P. No.632 of 2008 :5: muringa, pappaya, jack fruit were cut and removed from the property of the petitioner. The learned Addl. District Judge found that regarding 28 yielding coconut trees and 9 yielding arecanut trees, though the yield and price taken are correct, the annuity factor taken by the counter petitioner in assessing the compensation is not in accordance with the principles laid down in the decisions reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B (2000(1) KLT 542 (F.B.). On applying the principles laid down in that decision, the learned Addl. District Judge assessed the value of yielding coconut trees as Rs.2,59,384/-. Deducting the compensation already awarded, Rs.1,18,376/- was awarded by the Addl. District Judge as additional compensation for the yielding trees cut and removed. Considering the number of yielding trees cut and removed, I am of the view that enhanced compensation awarded towards the value of yielding trees is reasonable. 9. The Addl. District Judge found that 25 cents of property has been injuriously affected due to the drawal of 220 KV electric line. The Addl. Judge awarded Rs.45,000/- as diminished utility of C.R.P. No.632 of 2008 :6: land. That amount is also reasonable considering the extent of land involved. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Accordingly this C.R.P. is dismissed as it is without any merits. There is no order as to costs. M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/