IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 734 of 2005 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2003 IN OP(ELE.) NO.160/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, THRISSUR REVN. PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (LA) FOR KSEB, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------- P.S. GEORGE, PUTHEN VEEDU, SOUTH KONDAZHY, KONDAZHY VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.P.M. GEORGE AND BADISHA GEORGE, PUTHUKUDIL HOUSE, SOUTH KONDAZHY. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: I.A.NO.2064/2005 IN C.R.P.NO.734/2005 DISMISSED 08/04/2008 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 734 OF 2005 B -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th April, 2008 O R D E R For drawing 220 KV electric line from Thrissur to Palakkad, 123 rubber trees, nine cashew trees and 15 teak trees were cut and removed from the property belonging to the respondent. Dissatisfied with the award of compensation made by the Board, the respondent filed O.P. (Electricity) No.160 of 1996, on the file of the District Court, Thrissur. The court below granted an additional compensation of Rs.79,547.97 on account of cutting of trees, Rs.68,800/- on account of diminution of land value and Rs.12,500/- as compensation for taking over land for erecting electric tower. Thus, an amount of Rs.1,60,868/- was granted as additional compensation. 6% interest from 22.8.1996 was also granted. The Kerala State Electricity Board has filed this Revision challenging the order passed by the court below. 2. There was a dispute regarding age of the rubber trees. Two mahazars were prepared by the Board. Ext.A2 mahazar shows that the rubber trees were aged eight years. Ext.A2 mahazar was prepared on the basis of the enquiry conducted on 8.1.1991. Later, Ext.B1 mahazar dated 30.8.1991 was prepared wherein different age was shown for different number of trees. No explanation was offered why there was substantial C.R.P. NO.734 OF 2005 :: 2 :: difference of three years of age in Ext.A2 mahazar and Ext.B1 mahazar. The court below relied on Exts.A3 to A5 letters issued by the Rubber Board to the petitioner, which would indicate that the rubber plantation was effected in the year 1984. The evidence of PW1 was also relied on by the court below to hold that the trees were planted in 1984. It cannot be said that the appreciation of evidence made by the court below is wrong. The court below held that rubber trees start yielding at the age of seven years. That is not disputed. Thus the court below has taken that the rubber trees were yielding trees. 3. As regards the yield of rubber trees, PW1 stated that he would get 16 to 18 kgs per tree per year. The Commissioner assessed the yield at 21 kgs. The petitioner claimed value at the rate of Rs.60/- per kg of rubber latex. The court below took 7 kgs as the annual yield of rubber per tree and further deducted 60% towards maintenance and other expenses. The average price of rubber as shown in Ext.A6 publication made by the Rubber Board was relied on by the court below and the value was fixed at Rs.21.41 per kg. Thus the court below arrived at the conclusion that the annual yield per tree would be 721.967. The court below has fixed the yield at low rates. There cannot be any objection to the method adopted by the court below for calculating the compensation. C.R.P. NO.734 OF 2005 :: 3 :: 4. The respondent contended that one acre of land was affected by the drawal of the electric line. The Commissioner stated in his report that the area affected is only 86 cents. The property is situated adjacent to Mayannur road. As against the valuation of Rs.5,000/- per cent made by the Commissioner, the court below took Rs.4,000/- as the value per cent of the land. Diminution of land value was assessed at 20% of the land value and thus, for 86 cents, a sum of Rs.68,800/- was awarded as compensation for diminution of land value. The amount awarded by the court below is not excessive. A proper value of land was taken and the compensation fixed is not on the higher side. 5. For erecting the towers, an area of 3.13 cents was occupied. At the rate of Rs.4,000/- per cent, a sum of Rs.12,520/- was awarded as compensation. This amount is also not excessive, since as stated earlier, value of the land was properly fixed by the court below. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not in a position to hold that the compensation awarded by the court below is excessive or unjust. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/