IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 CRP.NO. 820 OF 2008() ---------------------------------- OPELE.123/2004 OF ADDL.D.C. ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------- 1. MEENAKSHI, PUTHEN NIKARTHIL HOUSE THIRUNALLOOR P.O., CHERTHALA. 2. PREETHA, PUTHEN NIKARTHIL HOUSE, THIRUNALLOOR P.O., CHERTHALA. 3. SHEEJA, PUTHEN NIKARTHIL HOUSE, THIRUNALLOOR P.O., CHERTHALA. 4. SHEENA, PUTHEN NIKARTHIL HOUSE, THIRUNALLOOR P.O., CHERTHALA. 5. SINDU, PUTHEN NIKARTHIL HOUSE, THIRUNALLOOR P.O., CHERTHALA. ADV. SRI.T.JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R1 TO R5 SRI.N.BALABINDU FOR R1 TO R5 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.820 of 2008 ==================================== Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is challenging order dated November 24, 2007 passed by Learned Additional District Judge in O.P(Ele.) No.123 of 2004 awarding enhanced compensation on a petition filed by the respondents under Sections 10 to 16 of the Indian Telegraphs Act read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act claiming additional compensation for value of improvements cut and removed and compensation for diminution in land value. 2. It is not disputed that certain valuable improvements were cut and removed from the property of respondents for drawal of 110 KV line. Petitioner awarded `.6,123/- as compensation. Respondents claimed additional compensation. Petition was opposed by petitioner contending that no additional compensation is payable for value of improvements and the claim for compensation for diminution in land value cannot be allowed. In the court below respondents proved Exts.A1 to A3. Petitioner did not produce any evidence. Neither side produced oral evidence also. Based on Exts.A1 to A3 learned Additional District Judge C.R.P. No.820 of 2008 -: 2 :- found that respondents are entitled to get `.18,000/- towards compensation for diminution in land value and awarded that amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of cutting till realisation. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that it is without any material on record that compensation was awarded. 3. So far as additional compensation for value of improvements is concerned, though learned Additional District Judge observed that annuity factor should have been taken as 5% in view of the decision in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 [1] KLT 542) in the absence of any datas produced by respondents that claim cannot be allowed. What is allowed is only compensation for diminution in land value. Learned Additional District Judge noted that three yielding coconut trees and 5 arecanut tress were cut and removed. Considering the number of trees cut and removed extent of property involved was taken as six cents. Learned Additional District Judge found that due to the drawal of 110 KV line potential value of the land has been reduced. 4. It is true that no documentary evidence is produced by the respondents to prove the land value. But having regard to C.R.P. No.820 of 2008 -: 3 :- the prevailing land value learned Additional District Judge took `.10,000/- per cent as the reasonable market value and compensation for diminution in land value was fixed as 30% of the said amount per cent. Thus for six cents learned Additional District Judge fixed `.18,000/- as the compensation for diminution in land value. 5. Having regard to the extent of land involved and the possible damage caused to the respondents on account of drawal of 110 KV line I am inclined to think that `.18,000/- awarded by the learned Additional District Judge is not exorbitant calling for interference. 6. Interest awarded also is reasonable. Hence I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order at the instance of petitioner. Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv