IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 351 of 2008() ------------------------------- O.P. NO.(ELE).104/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------- 1. LILLYKUTTY JOSEPH, D/O.JOSEPH, PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, PANAVALLY VILLAGE, POOCHAKKAL, CHERTHALA. 2. GORETHY JOSEPH, D/O.JOSEPH, PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, PANAVALLY VILLAGE, POOCHAKKAL, CHERTHALA. 3. GRACY JOSEPH, D/O.JOSEPH, PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, PANAVALLY VILLAGE, POOCHAKKAL, CHERTHALA. R1 & R3 BY ADV. MR.P.J.JOSEPH PANIKKASSERY, MR.P.J.THOMAS. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- CRP No.351 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 22nd February 2010 Order This is a petition, challenging the order of enhancement of compensation granted in OP(Ele.) No.104/99 by the Additional District Court, Alappuzha. 2. It appears that the respondent before the Court below, who is the petitioner herein, cut and removed some trees standing in the property belonging to the respondents herein for the purpose of drawing a 110 KV electric line. It is stated that 35 coconut trees and one pala tree were cut and removed. The Board awarded Rs.60,000/- as compensation for the trees cut and removed from the property. The Board did not award any amount towards diminution in land value. 3. The petitioner took up the matter before the District Court as provided under Ss.10 to 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act r/w S.51 of the Indian Electricity Act. The CRP 351/08 2 Court below, relying on the decision reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542) enhanced the compensation by Rs.54,000/- towards diminution in land value. Thus the respondents were ordered to be paid a total compensation of Rs.1,14,000/- with 6% interest from the date of cutting of trees till realisation. The said order is assailed in this petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed two points for consideration. It was pointed out that the enhancement made by the order relying on Kumba Amma's case (supra) was not sustainable since the said decision has already been reversed and it is no longer good law. It is also pointed out that no Commission was taken out and therefore, no evidence regarding the actual extent of property was available. 5. Though there is some substance in the above contention, one must notice that the present proceedings were initiated in the year 1999. 11 years have elapsed. The CRP 351/08 3 Court below relied on a decision which was then in force and awarded the compensation. May be it is slightly on the higher side. But, merely because the decision relied on by the Court has been reversed, it is not proper to set aside the order granting enhanced compensation. One must remember that the petitioner has lost considerable income in that regard. So, I feel that it is not proper to interfere with the order enhancing the compensation, at this juncture, also considering the drop in money value. 6. As far the diminution in land value is concerned, though there was no commission taken in the case, the Board must be having the necessary details, which would show the extent of property affected. The Court below, after evaluating the extent, has enhanced the amount by Rs.54,000/-, which is only just and proper. Of course, the Court below has observed that there is some difference between the land of the petitioner and the land for which value was assessed @ Rs.16,000/-. Whatever that be, the enhancement made is only just and CRP 351/08 4 reasonable. 7. Considering the above facts, it is felt that no grounds are made out warranting interference with the order of the Court below especially when future interest awarded is only @ 6%. This Petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta CRP 351/08 5