IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 690 of 2005() --------------------- OP(ELE).568/1995 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT IN O.P.: --------------------- ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS IN O.P.: --------------- 1. KADEEJA, W/O.LATE ABOOBACKER, ELEANKATTU, VAZAKKALA VILLAGE, KAKKANAD. (DIED) 2. SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O.LATE ABOOBACKER, ELEANKATTU, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KAKKANAD. 3. PAREED PILLAI, S/O.LATE ABOOBACKER, ELEANKATTU,VAZAKKALA VILLAGE, KAKKANAD. 4. SHAMSUDEEN, S/O.LATE ABOOBACKER, ELEANKATTU, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KAKKANAD. 5. HUSSAIN, S/O.LATE ABOOBACKER, ELEANKATTU, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KAKKANAD. R2 TO R5 ARE RECORDED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED R1, AS PER ORDER DATED 5.2.2010. ADV. SRI.VARGHESE PARAMBIL FOR R2 TO 5 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.1905 FO 2005 IN CRP.NO.690 OF 2005 DISMISSED. 16.2.2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.690 OF 2005 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010 O R D E R The respondent Kerala State Electricity Board in O.P. (Ele.)No.568 of 1995 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Ernakulam has filed this revision challenging the order of the learned District Judge awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.70,200/- to the respondent/claimant. Revision petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the 'Board' was directed to pay the enhanced compensation adjudged with interest at 10% per annum from the date of cutting till realisation. The Board was also directed to pay interest on the sum already paid from the date of cutting till the date of the payment. Though the claimant in the O.P. had sought for enhanced compensation towards the cutting down of the trees from his property as well with that of the claim for diminution of land value by the drawing of overhead lines, enhanced compensation was granted by the court only for the injurious affectation of the land. The claim for enhanced compensation CRP.690/05 2 towards cutting down of trees was declined, and there is no further challenge against the disallowing of that claim. Fixing the centage value of the property at Rs.18,000/- and assessing that the land had been injuriously affected to the extent of 30% over an area of 13 cents, the court below had awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.70,200/- towards the diminution of land value to the claimant. Assessment so made in respect of the land value, percentage of injurious affectation made etc. are highly excessive and unreasonable, is the grievance espoused by the Board to challenge the order of the learned District Judge by filing this revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The claim raised by the respondent in his O.P. was considered along with other claim petitions, which too arose in respect of the claims by owners of adjoining lands in respect of the drawing of the Aroor-Kalamassery 110 KV line by the Board. It is seen that the Board had granted compensation to the claimant in the present case only for the damages caused by the cutting and removing of the trees to facilitate the drawing of the overhead CRP.690/05 3 lines. A sum of Rs.61,303/- was awarded by the Board as compensation for the trees cut and removed. Admittedly, four arecanut trees, eight coconut tress and two jack fruit trees apart from other non-yielding trees were cut and removed from the property of the claimant. Having regard to the number of yielding jack fruit trees and also coconut trees, the learned District Judge had fixed 13 cents as the area of land, which had been injuriously affected in the property of the claimant, which is stated as having an extent of 63.250 cents. Considering the number of trees cut and removed, I do not find any impropriety in the fixation of the area as 13 cents out of the 63.250 cents of the whole property. Further more, the assessment so made is also seen supported by the report collected from an Advocate Commissioner deputed by the court. Then, with respect to the land value fixed at Rs.18,000/- per cent, it has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the claimant that a copy of a registered deed of a nearby property executed in 1986, that is, eight years prior to the cutting and removal of the trees was produced and exhibited as Ext.A1 in the case. The property CRP.690/05 4 covered by that deed was shown as having a value of more than Rs.22,000/- per cent. Admittedly, that property is situate beside a road though it is stated to be close to the property of the claimant. The learned District Judge has not considered Ext.A1 or the value shown therein for fixing the centage value of the property involved in the proceedings. On the other materials produced including the commission report, the value of the property has been fixed at Rs.18,000/- per cent. Nothing has been brought to my notice to show that the value so fixed is excessive and unreasonable. In the backdrop of Ext.A1 document produced by the claimant, which was registered eight years before the cutting and removal of the trees, I find the assessment and fixation of the value at Rs.18,000/- per cent by the learned District Judge has to be treated only as proper and correct. Diminution of land value has been assessed at 30% for fixing the compensation payable. Percentage so fixed is also found to be just and reasonable. In short, no justifiable ground has been made out to interfere with the compensation awarded by the learned District Judge on the basis of the centage value and also percentage of CRP.690/05 5 affectation over the land by the drawing of the land. Needless to say that in fixing the land value and also the percentage of affectation of the land by the drawing of the lines, there cannot be any precision or arithmetic perfection since that has to be worked out taking into account all relevant factors applicable for assessing injurious affectation of the land. It is not proper and correct to interfere with the assessment made by the inferior court for adjudging the compensation payable under that claim without sufficient and cogent reasons to do so. In the present case, I find no reason for interfering with the assessment made and the compensation awarded by the court below. Revision is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp