IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 CRP.No. 786 of 2008() --------------------- OP(ELE)60/2003 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR TRANSMISSION SECTION, K.S.E.BOARD, KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- K.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.LATE KARUNAKARAN, MAVELIKONATHU, MANJALI (S), KADAMPANADU, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MRPHILIP M.VARUGHESE THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.786 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order dated 31.11.2007 in O.P.(Ele).No.60 of 2003 by the learned Additional District Judge, Pathanamthitta. The above petition was filed by the respondent claiming enhanced compensation for the loss and damages caused due to the drawing of overhead lines through his property, having an extent of 17.9 cents in resurvey No.113/1/1 in Kadampanad Village by the Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board. Overhead lines were drawn for drawing a 220 KV electric transmission line by the Board. Towards the cutting and removal of the trees and for erection of a tower in the property of the respondent, the Board assessed and awarded a compensation of Rs.36,465/-. Challenging the compensation awarded as inadequate, the respondent filed the above petition seeking enhanced compensation of Rs.15,73,922.50/-. The Board resisted the claim contending just and reasonable compensation had been paid to the claimant for the drawing of the overhead line through his property. In the C.R.P.No.786 of 2009 2 enquiry on the petition, on the side of the respondent/claimant, two witnesses were examined as PWs 1 and 2 and A1 to A3 were exhibited. An advocate commissioner deputed by the court with the assistance of a surveyor determined and ascertained the matters required for fixing reasonable compensation and filed C1 to 3, mahazar, report and plan respectively. The learned District Judge after examining the materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides reassessed the compensation payable and came to the conclusion that the respondent/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.40,806/- over and above the sum awarded by the Board and it is ordered accordingly. 2. Perusing the order impugned it is seen that several fruit bearing and other income yielding trees were cut and removed from the property of the respondent/claimant for the drawing of the line. It is seen that 43 rubber trees of various ages, some of which yielding and others not so, apart from other fruit bearing trees were cut and removed for drawing the line. The Board has assessed the compensation at 10% annuity and paid the compensation on that principle. The court below taking note of the decision in Kumba Amma v. Kerala State C.R.P.No.786 of 2009 3 Electricity Board (2000(1) KLT 542), and according to the principles laid down thereunder, reassessed the compensation payable at 5% annuity and, accordingly, found the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.13,276/- on that count. Admittedly, a tower was constructed in the property of the respondent/claimant which extended to an area of more than 3.25 cents. On the basis of A1 sale deed, the centage value of the property was fixed at Rs.5,000/- and towards diminution of the land value by the construction of the tower and fixing such diminution at 80% the court below awarded Rs.12,840/- as compensation. The claimant in fact was entitled to 100% compensation as the entire area covered by the tower could not have been used for any activity at all. That being so, the compensation awarded Rs.12,840/- cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the learned counsel for the respondent assailed the fixation of centage value at Rs.5,000/- on the basis of A1 sale deed pointing out that the deed was executed much after the drawing of the line. But, in the given facts of the case, I find in exercise of revision reconsideration of that question as to what exactly was the centage value of the property is uncalled C.R.P.No.786 of 2009 4 for. There is nothing on record to show that there is any impropriety in the fixation of the centage value made by the learned District judge with reference to A1 sale deed though it was executed at a later point of time after drawing of the line. No other material was produced before the court by the Board in fixing the value of the land. So far as the remaining extent of the land, the learned District Judge has found it was injuriously affected by about 20%. Needless to point out in assessing the compensation payable towards injurious affectation of land a little bit of arbitrariness is unavoidable and so long it is not shown as perverse and unreasonable such fixation deserves acceptance. At any rate, I find no reason whatsoever for interfering with the assessment made by the learned District Judge, and the enhanced compensation awarded. There is no merit in the revision, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-