IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 CRP.No. 678 of 2008 --------------------- OP(ELE).84/2005 of ADDL.D.C. 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 ------------------------- SURENDRAN, S/O.APPU PILLAI, THEKKE ANJILIMOODU HOUSE, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: : 2 : ORDER ON I.A.NO.2020/2008 IN C.R.P.NO.678/2008 DISMISSED 18/9/2009 S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,JUDGE /True Copy/ P.A.TO JUDGE sks/ S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.678 of 2008 - B --------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order dated 19.2.2008 in O.P.(Ele).No.84 of 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha. The above O.P. was filed under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act r/w Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act by the respondent claiming enhanced compensation for the trees cut and removed and injurious affectation of his land by the drawing of overhead lines through his property by the Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board. The Board had awarded compensation of Rs.1,342/- to the respondent for the overhead line drawn through his property in connection with the drawing of Aroor-Kalamassery 110 KV High Tension Line. Compensation so awarded was challenged as inadequate and unreasonable by the respondent. 2. In the enquiry over the claim petition respondent/claimant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 were exhibited. On the side of the Board Ext.B1 valuation C.R.P.No.678 of 2008 - B 2 statement was exhibited. B1 valuation statement showned that one yielding coconut tree and one yielding mango tree were cut from the property of the claimant apart from two other non yielding trees. The Board has assessed compensation for the tress cut and removed at the annuity of 10% return, which was modified by the learned District Judge following the principles laid down in Kumba Amma v. KSEB (2000 (1) KLT 542) holding that the claimant is entitled to annuity of 5% return. Learned District Judge found that towards yielding trees cut and removed, claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs.2,616/- in the place of Rs.1,308/- awarded by the Board. Admittedly, the electric line was drawn through a small plot having an extent of 3.5 cents belonging to the claimant. Whereas he contended that the whole property was injuriously affected the Board refuted that case. The claimant contended that the centage value of the property was Rs.75,000/-, but, no convincing evidence thereof was produced. Taking note of the value shown in Ext.A1 sale deed over 6 cents of land closeby to the property, the court below fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent and C.R.P.No.678 of 2008 - B 3 also formed a conclusion on the basis of the evidence let in by PW1, the number of trees cut and removed etc., that 1.5 cents of the claimant's property had been injuriously affected by about 30%. In making such assessment it is noticed the court had also considered the principles laid down in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in KSEB v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1). Though the learned counsel for the petitioner, Board, assailed the centage value and also the percentage of injurious affectation fixed, and the extent of land so affected, as calculated by the learned District Judge, in the given facts of the case and the materials produced I find no impropriety or illegality in the assessment made. A little bit of arbitrariness is unavoidable where the court is called upon to determine the compensation payable towards injurious affectation of land by the drawing of overhead lines. Having regard to the fact that the claimant had only a small extent of land, three cents only, from which one yielding coconut and one mango tree apart from two non yielding trees were cut down, the learned District Judge, cannot be find fault with in holding that at least 1.5 cents of his land to the C.R.P.No.678 of 2008 - B 4 extent of 30% has been injuriously affected by the drawing of line. Similarly the centage value fixed with reference to Ext.A1 sale deed and the sworn testimony of the claimant as PW1, is also not open to challenge in the absence of any material showing that the conclusion formed thereof was not correct. So much so, I find the compensation of Rs.9,000/- awarded towards injurious affectation of land by the learned District Judge is only proper and correct. Thus, the total compensation awarded Rs.10,308/-, both for the injurious affection of his land and the additional compensation over and above the sum awarded by the Board for cutting down of the trees, I find can only be held to be just and reasonable. There is no scope for interference over the enhanced compensation awarded by the court below. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-