IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 31TH JANUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA, 1929 CRP.No. 1066 of 2005 OP.(ELE.)NO.1/1994 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER: ------------------ V.BALAKRISHNAN, KANNIMELEZHIKATHU VEEDU, MUTHUPILAKKADU WEST, P.O. PORUVAZHY, SASTHANCOTTA. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT: ------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, S.C.FOR K.S.E.B THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1066 OF 2005 E -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st January, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner filed O.P.(Ele) No.1 of 1994, on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Kollam, claiming additional compensation, dissatisfied with the award of compensation by the Kerala State Electricity Board. The court below held that the petitioner is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.13,455/- on account of diminution in land value. However, the court below held that the petitioner is not entitled to any additional compensation for the trees cut and removed. Challenging the order passed by the court below, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.457 of 2003. That Revision was partly allowed, setting aside that part of the order passed by the court below holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any additional compensation for the trees cut and removed. However, the revisional court did not interfere with the finding of the court below as regards the compensation on account of diminution in land value. 2. After remand, the court below passed the order dated 30.6.2005, which is under challenge in this Revision, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any additional compensation on account of the trees cut. C.R.P. NO.1066 OF 2005 E :: 2 :: 3. The petitioner owns 37 cents of land. For drawing overhead electric transmission line, four yielding coconut trees aged 25 years, three coconut trees aged seven years and one coconut tree aged ten years were cut and removed from his property. Compensation of Rs.8,730/- was granted to the petitioner on account of the trees cut. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.One lakh for the coconut trees aged 25 years, Rs.12,000/- for the coconut trees aged ten years and Rs.80,000/- for the coconut trees aged seven years. The total additional compensation claimed by the petitioner was Rs.1,89,270/-. The petitioner relied on the Commissioner's report wherein the nature of yielding trees were noted after a lapse of several years from the date of cutting. The court below held that the Commissioner's report cannot be made the basis for computation of compensation payable. The state of affairs as on the date of cutting being relevant, the court below thought that the data supplied in the Commissioner's report are not quite relevant. The court below took note of the fact that, even according to the petitioner, the land value would be Rs.3,000/- per cent and on that basis, if the value of the entire affected area of 14 cents is taken into account, it would be only Rs.42,000/-. In such circumstances, the court below held that the amount claimed by the petitioner is exorbitant. C.R.P. NO.1066 OF 2005 E :: 3 :: 4. The court below considered the evidence in the case and the method of calculation adopted by the Board. It was held that market value was arrived at by the Board by collecting data from the Coconut Development Board. At the time of cutting of trees, a mahazar was prepared and the details regarding number and age of the trees and the average yield etc. were mentioned in the mahazar. The mahazar was served on the petitioner, but he did not raise any objection in respect of the facts stated in the mahazar. The court below found that the Board has taken into account the annuity method and fixed the value of the trees properly. It was held that the petitioner is not entitled to any additional compensation on account of the trees cut. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the court below. It cannot be said that the court below was not justified in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any additional compensation. Relevant facts were taken note of and the court below was fully justified in holding that the claim made by the petitioner was excessive, exorbitant and imaginary. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/