IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 73 of 2008() ----------------------------- OPELE.159/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, KAYAMKULAM TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPAD. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KOLATHUTHEKKATHIL, HARIPADU VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. KANAKAMMA, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, KOLATHUTHEKKATHIL, HARIPADU VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLI TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2008,ALONG WITH CRP. 74/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. Nos.73 & 74 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 31st day of January 2008 O R D E R C.R.P.No.73 of 2008 is preferred against the award of the Addl.District Court-I, Mavelikkara in O.P.(Ele.)No.159 of 2003 and C.r.P.No.74 of 2008 is preferred against the award of the same court in O.P. (Ele.)No.132 of 2003. The court has awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.6336/- and in the other case, the court has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.9,625/-. 2. I have perused the awards in both the cases. So far as O.P(Ele.) No.132/2003 is concerned, the court awarded Rs.6,250/- towards additional compensation for the value of trees cut and for diminution of land value. Though it was contended that the market value of the property is more than Rs.25,000/- per cent, the court did not accept the same. Similarly the court had considered the materials available and had fixed the value of the property per cent at Rs.5,000/-. The court also held that taking into consideration the number of trees cut and removed and the area affected,etc. The court below has applied its mind and going by the CRPs 73 & 74/2008 -:2:- principles laid down in KSEB v. Livisha(2007(3) KLT 1(SC), which does not appear to be an unreasonable compensation. Therefore C.R.P.No.74/2008 lacks merit and the same is dismissed. C.R.P.No. 73 of 2008 is concerned the court awarded no enhancement for the trees cut. As far as the area covered by the tower is concerned no improvement can be made and it will become useless for the petitioners and therefore given the diminution of land value at 80% for 3 cents and at the rate of 10 % for 14.5. cents. I find that the learned District Judge has applied his mind to the facts of the case and only awarded a reasonable compensation. Therefore C.R.P.No.73 lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-