IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 382 of 2007() ------------------------------ OP(EA.)504/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------------- SIDHARTHAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O KITTU, VAYALIL, EIKAVU P.O., KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENTS: COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, LOCAL OFFICE AT NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPPAD. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 382 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of March, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Alappuzha whereby the learned Judge has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.9,643/-. The learned Judge did not grant any compensation with respect to diminution in land value. So far as the first point regarding the enhancement of compensation with respect to cutting of trees is concerned there is no challenge by the respondent and therefore it does not call for any interference. 2. Now, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that if a chance is provided to him he will be able to take out a Commission before the Court below and adduce satisfactory evidence to show how the land has been affected and therefore he will be entitled to compensation for diminution in land value. He should have done it at an earlier instance. But as he had not done it, it does not mean that he must be permanently precluded from raising such a plea. Therefore I think an opportunity can be given. Therefore the CRP NO. 382 of 2007 -:2:- award under challenge is set aside to the limited extend on the question of consideration of diminution in land value and the Court below is directed to permit the revision petitioner to take out a Commission and adduce evidence in support of the same. 3. Needless to say, the respondent also is entitled to challenge the same and adduce evidence if he wants to do so. To this extend the award under challenge is set aside and the parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 22.5.2008. C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-