IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 CRP.No. 103 of 2008() --------------------- OP(ELE)8/1997 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC I),WAYANAD, KALPETTA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.MR. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ PATHUMMA, W/O.MOOSAKUTTY, PEEDIKAKANDY HOUSE, PALLIKKUNNU POST, KANIYAMBETTA. BY ADVS. MR.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, MR.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH, MR.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.103 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 5th August, 2009 ORDER The revision is directed against the order dated 22.6.2005 in O.P.(Ele.)No.8 of 1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc)-1, Wayanad, Kalpetta. The respondent filed the above O.P. under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Sections 42 and 60 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1948 seeking enhanced compensation towards the damages sustained on account of drawing of overhead electric lines through his property cutting down of valuable trees and causing injurious affectation to his property. Admittedly, the revision petitioner, hereinafter referred to as 'the Board', for the purpose of drawing 220 KV electric line to Kaniymabetta sub station cut down trees both yielding and nonyielding to draw overhead lines through the property of the claimant. The Board awarded compensation of Rs.15,260/- towards the injury sustained by the claimant by the cutting down of trees for drawing the line. No compensation was provided towards injurious affectation of the land. Challenging the compensation as inadequate and estimating a compensation of Rs.3,14,000/- towards the value of CRP 103/08 - 2 - the trees and injurious affectation of his land, the claimant filed the above O.P. The Board resisted that application contending that reasonable and adequate compensation had been paid. In the enquiry on the petition, an advocate commissioner conducted an inspection and filed Ext.C1 report to assist the court in the determination of the compensation payable. No oral evidence was tendered. On the part of the claimant, A1 to A4 and for the Board B1 to B6 were exhibited in evidence. The learned District Judge, after examining the materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides, found the compensation assessed and paid inadequate. On a reassessment of the compensation in accordance with the legal principles applicable, compensation payable towards cutting down of trees and crops was estimated at Rs.41,558/- and for the injurious affectation of the land, a sum of Rs.6250/- was found payable towards diminution of land value by the drawing of the overhead lines. Thus, an enhanced compensation of Rs.32,548/- deducting the amount already paid was directed to be given to the claimant as enhanced compensation with 12% interest per annum from the date of cutting of trees till realisation within one month from the date of the order, failing which the claimant was allowed to realise the sum with 9% interest per CRP 103/08 - 3 - annum from the date of default till realisation. Impeaching the compensation so awarded as excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable, the Board has come up with this revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. So far as the compensation paid towards the value of the trees and crops cut down, the Board has assessed it applying the rate of interest at 10%. Pursuant to the directions given by the court below to reassess the valuation on the basis of the legal principles enunciated in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542(FB) determining the compensation based on the rate of interest at 5% valuation statement was filed. The claimant on such assessment was found entitled to have Rs.41,558/- as compensation towards the damages sustained for cutting down the trees and crops. Deducting the sum of Rs.15,260/- paid towards the loss sustained on that count by the Board, enhanced compensation payable was fixed at Rs.26,212/-. It is noticed that no objection was raised by the Board to the valuation statement based on the principle enunciated in the decision reported above. After going through the valuation statement and the assessment made, I find the assessment and refixation of the compensation is proper, valid and correct. True, the legal principles CRP 103/08 - 4 - enunciated in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542(FB) in the matter of assessment of compensation has to be read along with the decision of the apex court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [ (2007) 6 S.C.C. 792]. But the apex court was dealing with the question of compensation payable to the diminution of land value and not in respect of the damages caused by cutting down valuable trees and ascertaining of compensation thereof. It has been held that the profitable use of the land despite drawing of the overhead line has also to be examined in adjudging the compensation payable towards diminution of land value. In the present case, on the basis of the commission report, it has been found that five cents of land of the claimant suffered diminution of land value on account of the drawing of overhead lines. Though the commissioner has suggested the market value of the land at Rs.8000/- per cent, the court below has fixed it at Rs.6,000/- per cent. Reduction in land value suffered was fixed at 25% and for the five cents of land, a sum of Rs.6250/- was awarded by the court below towards diminution of land value. True, the court below has not considered the question whether the land could be used for other utilitarian purposes and how far that has to be taken into account in determining the diminution in land value CRP 103/08 - 5 - suffered by the petitioner on account of the drawing of overhead lines. However, considering the compensation fixed towards diminution of the land value and the small extent of land involved, I find no interference is warranted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this court. Even if that five cents of land is found to be fit for some other utilitarian purposes despite drawing of overhead lines, I find there would not be much difference from the compensation fixed towards diminution of land value by the court below. So much so, compensation fixed on that count also does not call for any interference. Revision is found devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE