IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.NO. 401 OF 2008() --------------------- {OP(ELE.0109/2003 OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- P.SOMANATHA PILLAI, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, ULLADANPARAMBIL (DEVARAGAM), PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN & SRI.V.SATHEESH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.401 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. O R D E R Revision is directed against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P.(Ele) No.109/03 awarding enhanced compensation to the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant'), towards the loss and damage caused by the drawing of overhead electric lines through his property by the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). The claimant, dissatisfied with the compensation adjudged and awarded by the Board, filed the above petition seeking enhanced compensation under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act. The Board had awarded compensation of Rs.9242/- towards the loss sustained by the claimant by C.R.P.No.401 of 2008 :: 2 :: the cutting down of trees from his property to facilitate the drawing of the line. Claim for enhanced compensation was resisted by the Board contending that just and reasonable compensation had been paid. 2. In the enquiry on the claim of enhanced compensation, claimant was examined as PW.1 and Exts.A1 and A2 were exhibited on his side. A report and mahazar prepared by an advocate commissioner were also exhibited as Ext.C1 series. No evidence was let in by the Board. 3. The learned District Judge, after analyzing the materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides re-assessed the compensation payable to the claimant with reference to the guidelines and principles enunciated by this court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. {2000(1) K.L.T. 542}. Admittedly, the Board has assessed the compensation taking annuity return at C.R.P.No.401 of 2008 :: 3 :: 10% which was frowned upon and held to be not correct by this court in the above cited decision. This court has expressed the view that in the case of fixation of compensation for tree cutting 5% annuity has to be valued. True, in the latter decision of the Apex Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha and others {2007(3) K.L.T. 1} the principles laid down by this court in Kumba Amma's case are held to be not correct and several other factors are directed to be taken into account in adjudging the compensation like the situs of the land, its proximity to public office, the importance of the locality etc. In the present case, it is seen, the extent of land in the possession and enjoyment of the land through which the lines were drawn was only 22 cents. In respect of a small tract of land and also where the number of trees cut down are limited, it may be quite unnecessary to have roving enquiry on various factors C.R.P.No.401 of 2008 :: 4 :: for adjudging compensation. Further more, it is noticed that towards enhanced compensation, the learned District Judge has awarded, compensation of a sum of Rs.5,100/- only, which, by no stretch of imagination, can be held to be excessive and unreasonable. It is also bought to my notice, the number of trees cut from their property for drawing the lines was 49 which included some yielding coconut trees as well. At any rate, the enhanced compensation awarded towards the trees cut and removed i.e. Rs.5,100/- in this case does not warrant any interference. 4. On the materials placed before the court especially the commission report and the oral evidence of the claimant as PW.1, the learned District Judge was persuaded to hold that over 9 cents out of the 22 cents, the claimant had suffered diminution of land value by C.R.P.No.401 of 2008 :: 5 :: the drawing of overhead lines. Though the claimant had asserted that the centage value of his property was Rs.45,000/-, on the basis of the materials produced, the centage value was fixed at Rs.20,000/-, and injurious affection over the land by the drawing of the line determined as at 30%. No circumstance whatsoever has been brought to my notice to hold that the percentage of diminution value assessed by the court is excessive and unreasonable. It is also seen that the lines have been drawn by the Board for the purpose of drawing 110 KV line. Needless to point out that in respect of the drawing of 110 KV lines sufficient clearing area apart from the area underneath covered by the lines has also to be provided to ensure free flow of energy without obstruction. Taking that circumstance also into consideration, I find the court below was justified in holding that 9 cents out of the 22 C.R.P.No.401 of 2008 :: 6 :: cents has been injuriously affected. A sum of Rs.32,400/- awarded towards injurious affection of the land due to the drawing of 110 KV line through the property, in such circumstance, cannot be treated as excessive. Suffice to state, the total compensation awarded on both counts i.e. towards the tree cutting and also for injurious affection, fixing the same as Rs.37,500/-, over and above the sum awarded by the Board, in the given facts of the case and materials produced, does not warrant any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Revision lacks merits, and is dismissed Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//