IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 301 of 2007() --------------------- {OP(ELE.)NO.315/2002 OF THE ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------- SMT. UMA SHANMADHURAN, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. SRI. SHANMADHURAN, ASWATHY BHAVAN, PUTHENPURACKAL, KUMBALANGI, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP No.301/07 ::3 :: ORDER ON I.A.No.883/07 IN CRP No.301/07 DISMISSED. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) 11.2.2010. JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. To Judge. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C.R.P.No.301 of 2007 ----------------------------------------------- Dated the the 11th day of February, 2010 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order dated 22.3.2006 in O.P.(Electricity) No.315/02 passed by the Additional District Judge (Ad hoc- II), Ernakulam. The respondent in the revision petition (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') filed the above original petition under Section 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act claiming enhanced compensation for the trees cut and removed and also towards the diminution of land value of her property on account of drawing of electric lines through that property by the revision petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). Towards the compensation for the trees cut and removed for drawing of the line, the Board had assessed and paid compensation of C.R.P.No.301 of 2007 :: 2 :: Rs.33,190/- to the claimant. Contending that the compensation paid is unreasonable and inadequate the claimant preferred the above original petition (O.P.(Electricity) No.315/02). The Board resisted that application contending that just and reasonable compensation had already been paid. 2. In the enquiry over the claim raised, the claimant was examined and Ext.A1 was marked on her side. On the side of the Board only the detailed valuation statement was got marked. An Advocate Commissioner deputed by the court, after conducting local inspection, filed a report and plan which were exhibited as Ext.C1. The electric lines were admittedly drawn through the property of the claimant having an extent of 18.6 cents of land comprising a residential building. The report of the Advocate Commissioner, Ext.C1, disclosed that the line was drawn cut across through the C.R.P.No.301 of 2007 :: 3 :: middle of the property. Though the Commissioner had assessed the land value at Rs.75,000/- per cent noting the importance of the locality wherein a temple and other public offices are situate closeby, the court below relying on a sale deed executed over 7 cents of land situate closeby, fixed the land value at Rs.20,000/- per cent. Fixing the amount for injurious affection on the land for drawing of the line at 30% and taking note that the line had been drawn across the property, the learned District Judge concluded that the entire land was injuriously affected and in that view of the matter, compensation of Rs.1,11,900/- was awarded to the claimant for the diminution of the land value of her property. 3. Admittedly, the Board had assessed the compensation for the trees cut and removed at 10% annuity return and thus fixed the same at C.R.P.No.301 of 2007 :: 4 :: Rs.33,190/-. Taking note of the guidelines and the judicial pronouncements rendered by this court in ascertaining and fixing compensation towards the value of the trees, the court below fixed annuity return at 5% and re-assessed the compensation. On such re-assessment, additional compensation towards the trees cut and removed was found to be Rs.20,000/- and it was accordingly awarded. The learned counsel for the Board contended that the principle enunciated by this court for fixation at 5% annuity return had been found to be not correct by the Apex Court in the decision in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha and others {2007(3) K.L.T. 1} and so much so, the compensation fixed by the court below was not correct. Similarly, it is further contended that the land value fixed and also the percentage of injurious affection determined was also on the higher side. In Livisha's case the Apex Court has C.R.P.No.301 of 2007 :: 5 :: held that the importance of the locality, closeness of the public office etc., have also to be considered in fixing the compensation for the diminution of land due to the drawing of the electric line through the property. 4. I find that the learned District Judge has taken the relevant factors with reference to Ext.A1 title deed over the adjoining land in fixing the land value. 30% of the land value fixed towards injurious affection in the given facts of the case cannot be stated to be excessive where it is seen that the overhead lines had cut across through the middle of the property. I find, stated there is any impropriety in the fixation of the compensation towards diminution of the land value by the court below. Enhanced compensation awarded for the trees cut and removed, is found to be just and reasonable. In exercise of revisional C.R.P.No.301 of 2007 :: 6 :: jurisdiction interference with an order passed by the inferior court is permissible only if there is jurisdictional infirmity which if not be corrected would result in miscarriage of justice. There is no jurisdictional infirmity in the orders passed by the court below and no ground is made out for exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the present case. Civil Revision Petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE SK/- //true copy//