IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 CRP.No. 529 of 2010() ------------------------------ OP(ELE.).140/2005 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): ADDL.PETITIONERS 2 TO 4: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. OMANA, W/O.PAVITHRAN, AGED 49, KANDANATTUCHIRA, THYCATTAUSSERY VILLAGE, THYCATTUSSERY P.O., CHERTHALA-688 524. 2. PADMALEKHA @ MANJU, AGED 29, KANDANATTUCHIRA, THYCATTUSSERY VILLAGE, THYCATTUSSERY P.O., CHERTHALA-688 524. 3. RENJU, D/O.PAVITHRAN, AGED 23, KANDANATTUCHIRA, THYCATTUSSERY VILLAGE, THYCATTUSSERY P.O., CHERTHALA-688 524. ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR FOR R1-R3 SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN FOR R1-R3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.529 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 13th day of December, 2010 1ORDER Respondent in O.P(Ele).No.140 of 2005 of the court of learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha is the petitioner before me. 11Kv line was drawn through property of respondents herein for which yielding improvements were removed. Petitioner awarded `.5604/- as compensation to the respondents. Respondents claimed additional compensation for value of improvements and compensation for diminished land value. That application was opposed by petitioner. Respondent No.2 gave evidence as PW1 and proved Exts.A1 and C1 series. Based on that evidence learned Additional District Judge has awarded enhanced compensation for value of improvements and compensation for diminished land value due to drawal of the line. It is contended by learned counsel that compensation awarded is excessive. Learned counsel for respondents supported the order. 2. So far as enhanced compensation for value of improvements is concerned, it is seen that coconut trees aged 10 years, cashew nut tree and two mango trees, all yielding were cut and removed. Respondents filed statement showing additional compensation payable for value of improvements as `.25,596/-. C.R.P.No.529 of 2010 : 2 : That was not objected by petitioner. In the circumstance learned Additional District Judge accepted the statement of respondents and fixed additional compensation payable for value of improvements as `.25,596/-. Having regard to the nature of improvements removed, its yield as assessed by the petitioner and that statement prepared by respondents was not objected by petitioner I do not find reason to interfere with that part of the order. 3. What remained is whether compensation awarded for diminished land value is excessive. The Advocate Commissioner in Ext.C1 has stated that respondents owned 6 cents where they are residing and that entire property has become useless on account of drawal of the line. The sketch attached to Ext.C1 shows that a line was drawn along the northern portion of the 6 cents adjoining the house of respondents. Commissioner has stated that house situated in the said 6 cents is comparatively old and according to respondents reconstruction of building is prohibited by petitioner on account of drawal of the line. Considering the fact that total extent involved is 6 cents and considering the portion through which the line has drawn as shown by the Advocate Commissioner, it appears to me that the said contention of respondents is justified. C.R.P.No.529 of 2010 : 3 : 4. Respondents produced Ext.A1 to show that land value is `.16,000/- per cent. Advocate Commissioner has reported that Ext.A1, property is similarly placed with property of respondents. In view of that, learned Additional District Judge has fixed the land value as `.16,000/- per cent which I do not find reason to interfere. The extent of land affected is fixed as 6 cents which also does not call for interference. 5. So far as percentage of compensation payable for diminished land value is concerned, it has been fixed by learned Additional District Judge at 40%. Having regard to the fact that total extent of land is only 6 cents and reconstruction of the building is not possible, compensation payable for diminished land value fixed as `.63,996/- does not call for interference. This petition fails. It is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-