IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 648 of 2004(I) ---------------------- OP.EA.340/1996 of ADDL.D.C.,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: ------------------------ VIJAYAMMA, D/O. KAMALAKSHIAMMA, KAMALALAYAM, AROORMURI, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.SHIJA S. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C.R.P.No. 648 of 2004 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008 O R D E R The Kerala State Electricity Board challenges the order dated 24/02/2003 in O.P.(E.A)No.340/1996 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha. 2. For the purpose of drawing Aroor-Mararikulam 110 K.V electric line, trees were cut from the property of the respondent. The extent of the property is 33 cents. The affected area, according to the Commissioner and which was accepted by the court below, is 12 cents. The court below, on the basis of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the land value would be at Rs.25,000/- per cent of land. While fixing the land value the court below took into account the value of Ext.A1 property though Ext.A1 was not as such relied on. As per Ext.A1, the extent of 2 cents of property was sold for Rs.1,50,000/-. Ext.A2 was produced by the respondent herein to show that the value shown therein was Rs.49,000/- per cent of land. Taking into account Ext.A1 and the evidence on record, the court below fixed the land value at Rs.25,000/-. On the basis of the land value at Rs.25,000/- and holding that the respondent herein is C.R.P.No.648 of 2004 -: 2 :- entitled to 30% thereof as compensation for diminution in land value, the court below held that the respondent herein is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.90,000/-. 3. Before the court below, the oral evidence of PW.1 was available. Commission was taken out at the instance of the respondent. The Commissioner submitted Ext.C1 report, Ext.C2 Mahazar and Ext.C3 rough sketch. The finding of the court below that an extent of 12 cents of land has been injuriously affected is based on materials and evidence. The evidence of the petitioner that the value and utility of the property has been reduced considerably is not challenged by the Board by adducing evidence. Infact, no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Board. 4. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the court below was justified in holding that the respondent herein is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.90,000/-. The court below has not granted any enhancement on account of the value of trees cut and removed. For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the Civil Revision Petition lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No orders as to costs. K.T.SANKARAN, Judge ms