IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 CRP.No. 55 of 2008() ------------------------- OP(ELE.)80/2004 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------ KUNHIKELAPPAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. RARICHAN, PARAKKIL HOUSE,VILAYATTOR, NARAKODE, KEEZHARIYUR PO, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.55 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011. ORDER The Kerala State Electricity Board (for short, “the Board”) has come in revision against an order passed by learned II Additional District Judge, Kozhikode in O.P.(Ele.) No.80 of 2004 enhancing the amount awarded to the petitioner from `919/- to `43,381/- in respect of cutting and removal of 94 rubber plants aged about four years and a miscellaneous tree for the drawal of 110 KV high tension line. Respondent claimed as compensation `3,76,000/- for cutting and removal of rubber plants and `81,000/- for diminution of land value due to drawal of the line. Respondent gave evidence as PW1. The detailed valuation statement produced by respondent was marked as Ext.A1. The Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and submitted a report and sketch. Based on the evidence, learned II Additional District Judge found that an additional sum of `22,581/- is payable for cutting and removal of rubber plants and `20,800/- is payable as compensation for diminished land value. Learned counsel contends that the award is passed without any basis and even going by the evidence of PW1, he is not entitled to get `22,581/- for cutting and removal of the rubber plants. It is contended that there is no material to fix the land value as fixed by the learned Additional District Judge. 2. It is not disputed and Ext.A1, the detailed valuation statement shows that 94 rubber plants aged 4 years were cut and removed, apart from a miscellaneous tree. Had the rubber plants been there for another three more CRP No.55/2008 2 years, it would have started giving yield. It would have given yield for a minimum of fifteen years. The maintenance expense for the remaining three years (till it started giving yield) would have been comparatively less than the expenses incurred during the four years. Learned Additional District Judge has not computed compensation on that basis. Instead, price of rubber plants, expense for its transportation, planting and maintenance for four years has been taken into account. Learned Additional District Judge relied on the evidence of respondent as PW1 and fixed expense for rubber plants at the rate of `250/- each. Thus total compensation payable is `23,500/- (94 x 250). Less the sum of `919/- awarded by the petitioner (the Board) additional compensation payable is `22,581/-. I am not inclined to think, having regard to the above said aspects and the evidence of PW1, that compensation awarded is exorbitant to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 3. The next claim is for compensation for diminished land value. From the report of the Advocate Commissioner it came out that the line was drawn at a length of 95.7 metres and breadth of 22 metres. The total area affected as found to be 52 cents. PW1 claimed that the land value in the locality is `3,000/- per cent. But he did not produce any document to prove that. Since the land was not acquired and its ownership is with the respondent, he could cultivate seasonal crops in the land. But cultivation of permanent crops and construction of structures is made impossible. That affected the utility and value CRP No.55/2008 3 of the land and consequently resulted in diminution of its value. Learned Additional District Judge has fixed the land value at `2,000/- per cent which I am not inclined to think is exorbitant to call for interference in revision. 20% of the land value is taken as the basis for fixing compensation which also does not call for interference. The compensation for diminished land value fixed by learned Additional District Judge is `20,800/- (2000x52x20/100). It calls for no interference. The total additional compensation payable to the respondent comes to `43,381/-. 7. Learned District Judge has granted 6% interest from the date of cutting of trees till its realisation which, in view of the current rate of interest also, I do not find reason to interfere. The order under challenge requires no interference. Civil revision is dismissed. No cost. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks