IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 CRP.No. 484 of 2010() --------------------- OPELE.342/1999 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ PETITIONER IN OP ELECTRICITY ------------------------------------------------- THE RAJAGIRI RUBBER & PRODUCE CO.LTD., W/21/674,BEACH ROAD,ALAPPUZHA REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR,R.VENUGOPALAN,SON OF LATE RAMASWAMY. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT IN OP ELECTRICITY ------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., A.GOVT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER,POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA, NAGYARKULANGARA,KAYAMKULAM TRANSMISSION PROJECT, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI. MILLU DANDAPANI THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.484 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 22nd day of September, 2010 ORDER Respondent appears through standing counsel, Sri. Millu Dandapani. Heard both sides. 2. This revision arises from the order passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Kollam in O.P.(Ele.).No.342 of 1999 awarding enhanced compensation for drawal of 220kv line and tree cutting through the property of petitioner. Respondent has awarded Rs.21,55,533/- as compensation for value of improvements. Petitioner claimed enhanced compensation. Petitioner examined PWs.1 and 2 and proved Exts.A1 to A7. Learned Additional District Judge has awarded a total sum of Rs.14,11,267/- as enhanced compensation with interest @7.5% per annum from date of filing of the petition. According to the petitioner, order passed is erroneous since compensation awarded is low. It is pointed out that after ascertaining compensation payable for value of improvements learned Additional District Judge has made a deduction of 40% towards cost of manuring and maintenance but what is awarded as compensation is only 40% of the amount ascertained as C.R.P.No.484 of 2010 : 2 : compensation against 60% which ought to have been allowed. It is also contended that compensation awarded for diminished land value is not correct. Learned counsel for respondent contends that compensation for value of improvements has been assessed without referring to the annuity factor and merely on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. It is contended that no commission was taken out to ascertain possible yield from the trees cut and removed. The further contention is that it is without ascertaining land value of the property and extent of land if any affected that compensation has been awarded for diminished land value. 3. I have gone through the order under challenge. Learned Additional District Judge relying on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A7 came to the conclusion that income from the rubber tree fetched per year is 10Kg and taking value of rubber as Rs.50/-per Kg. Compensation was assessed at Rs.10,51,500/- and then there is a deduction of 40% for maintenance and other purposes. If that be so, petitioner should get 60% of the said sum but, what is awarded is only 40%. It is seen that it is without any independent evidence regarding possible yield learned Additional District Judge has fixed the yield from the rubber trees. It is also seen that annuity factor was not C.R.P.No.484 of 2010 : 3 : taken into account. 4. Compensation awarded for diminished land value also does not appear to be correct as there is no acceptable evidence as to the extent of land if any affected by drawal of the line. No acceptable evidence is produced regarding land value. Learned Additional District Judge failed to note that 100% of land value could be given only for that much extent of land used for construction of tower. Rest of the land covered by the drawal of line can be put to some profitable use such as cultivation of catch crops. Hence compensation for diminished land value for such portion should be a percentage of the land value and not 100% of the land value. On hearing learned counsel on both sides and going through the order under challenge I find that order as a whole is not satisfactory. Hence it is liable to be set aside and the case remitted to the court below for fresh decision. Resultantly this petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. O.P(Ele.).No.342 of 1999 is remitted to the court below for fresh decision after giving opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. Parties shall appear in that court on 30-10-2010. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-