IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 68 of 2008() -------------------- OP(ELE)223/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): IST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REP. BY THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, KAYAMKULAM TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPAD. BY ADV. MR.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ SANTHAMMA, W/O.DASEN, SREELAL BHAVANAM, MAHADEVIKADU P.O. BY ADV. MR.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- C.R.P No.68 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February 2010 ORDER Challenge in the revision is against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mavelikkara awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.40,734/- to the respondent hereinafter referred to as the claimant in O.P(Ele.) No.223/2002. The revision petitioner hereinafter referred to as the respondent for the purpose of drawing overhead lines to facilitate the drawing of 220 KV line cut and removed valuable trees from the property of the claimant. Towards compensation for the loss suffered, the respondent awarded a sum of Rs.31,734/-. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimant preferred the above petition seeking enhanced compensation. The application was resisted by the respondent contending that reasonable and adequate compensation had already been paid to the claimant. Previously, after taking evidence the O.P had been disposed of awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.40,734/- to the claimant. That order was challenged by the respondent preferring a revision, and noticing that the court below has not adverted to the principles and guidelines applicable for adjudicating a claim of enhanced compensation applied for setting aside the previous order the case was remitted for fresh disposal. Pursuant thereto, after C.R.P No.68 OF 2008 Page numbers reappreciating the materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides, the court below has passed the present order impugned in the revision by which also the same amount awarded earlier that is the sum of Rs.40,734/-, has been adjudged as the enhanced compensation payable to the claimant. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The amount awarded is excessive and unreasonable is the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/respondent in the O.P. Perusing the impugned order, I find, the court below has awarded enhanced sum of Rs.31,734 towards the trees cut and removed from the property of the claimant. It is seen that 18 yielding coconut trees had been cut and removed for the drawing of overhead line apart from cutting down several other nonyielding trees as well. The respondent has assessed the compensation payable to the trees cut and removed taking an annuity return of 15%. The court below had taken the annuity return of 5% following the guidelines given in Kumba Amma's case. Though the apex court has held that the guidelines enunciated in Kumba Amma's case cannot be uniformly applied and several other factors have to be taken into account including sites of the land, the area through which the line passes, importance of the land with public institutions etc. having regard to the fact that enhanced compensation awarded by the court related to C.R.P No.68 OF 2008 Page numbers 18 yielding coconut trees which had been cut and removed from the property of the claimant, I find, It cannot be stated that the awarding of that enhanced compensation is excessive or unreasonable. Needless to point out interference with an order of the inferior court especially in the matter of determination of compensation on appreciating the materials tendered is permissible only if it is shown there is some glaring infirmity, which if not corrected is likely to cause miscarriage of justice or the order suffers from such jurisdictional infirmity which has to be corrected by the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court. I do not find any impropriety, illegality or jurisdictional infirmity in the oder passed by the court nor in the adjudging of the compensation payable to the claimant. The court below has found that 18 cents of the property belonging to the claimant had been injuriously affected by the drawing of overhead line. Having regard to the fact that 18 yielding coconut trees had been cut down and the overhead line were drawn for the purpose of drawing 220KV line through the property of the claimant, I find, the area of land which has been determined by the court below as having been injuriously affected is only reasonable. Fixing a centage value of Rs.5,000/- the court below has held that the diminution of land value by the drawing of overhead line at 10% and in that view of the matter a sum of Rs.9,000/- was awarded C.R.P No.68 OF 2008 Page numbers as compensation towards diminution of land value to the claimant. The reasoning and also the assessment made by the court below for grant of compensation towards the diminution of land value appears to be proper, correct and at any rate it does not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. I find that the enhanced compensation awarded by the court below is only just and reasonable. No interference with the order of the court below is called for. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv