IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 CRP.No. 892 of 2006 --------------------- OPELE.230/1999 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS: -------------------------- 1. SMT.ALEYAMMA VARGHESE (DIED), POKKAYIL HOUSE, PINDIMANA, CHELAD P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. GEEVARGHESE @ VARGHESE, AGRICULTURIST, POKKAYIL HOUSE, PINDIMANA, CHELAD P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. ADV. MR.SAJI.P.JOSEPH FOR R2 MR.SAJITH PAUL MATHEW FOR R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP.No. 892 of 2006 ORDER ON I.A.NO.3193/2006 IN C.R.P.NO.892/2006 DISMISSED. 12.10.2009 SD/-S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.892 of 2006 - A --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order dated 30.11.2005 in O.P.(Ele).No.230 of 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ernakulam. The above petition was filed by the respondent under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act seeking enhanced compensation for the loss and damages caused by drawing of overhead lines through his property. Admittedly, the revision petitioner, namely, the Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, for the purpose of drawing a transmission line through the property of the respondent comprised in survey No.593 1B 4 of Pindimana Village, cut and removed some trees from that property, and towards compensation thereof a sum of Rs.16,752/- was awarded. Challenging the compensation awarded, the respondent hereinafter referred to as the claimant, filed the above petition seeking enhanced compensation. C.R.P.No.892 of 2009 - A 2 2. In the enquiry over the petition, two witnesses were examined as PWs 1 and 2 and A1 to A5 were exhibited. On the side of the Board, two documents were exhibited, R1 and R1(a). The learned District Judge after appreciating the materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.36,945/- with 6% interest from the date of cutting and removal of trees. Challenge raised in the revision is against the compensation so awarded by the court below. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Relying on Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha (2007(3) KLT 1) learned counsel for the Board contended that determination of compensation made by the court below is not in consonance with the principles and guidelines given by the apex court and so much so, the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge suffers from jurisdictional infirmity and thus liable to be interfered with in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. C.R.P.No.892 of 2009 - A 3 5. Perusing the impugned order, it is seen, the Board had assessed the compensation towards the value of trees cut and removed at 10% annuity and the court below taking note of the principles laid down in Kumba Amma v. Kerala State Electricity Board (2000 (1) KLT 542) passed by this Court, reassessed the compensation payable for fixing such compensation at 5% annuity. I find nothing in the decision rendered by the apex court in Livisha's case (supra) to hold that the assessment of the compensation following the principles laid down in Kumba Amma's case (supra) cannot be made applicable depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The apex court has held that compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees are concerned, the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course in a case where it is shown that fixation of compensation at 5% annuity would cause prejudice or injury to any of the parties involved depending upon the facts and circumstances in the case, a different yardstick can be applied for. No such special circumstance is made out in the present case to hold that the C.R.P.No.892 of 2009 - A 4 principles laid down in Kumba Amma's case are inapplicable to the case. So far as diminution of value on account of drawing of overhead lines through the property of the plaintiff which, admittedly, is a small plot having an extent of 5 cents, the court below fixing its centage value at Rs.5,000/- has awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation assessing the diminution of land value at 40% per cent. A little bit of arbitrariness cannot be avoided by the court in fixing the land value of the property in the absence of sufficient materials, establishing in precise terms what exactly was the market value of the land as and when lines were drawn. It appears, the court below has relied upon the oral evidence tendered by the claimant, his witness and also the materials tendered by him to hold that the property through which the lines were drawn at the relevant time had centage value of Rs,5,000/-. No material was placed by the Board before the court that its value was less than the amount so fixed. I find no impropriety in the fixation of the compensation and the sum awarded by the court below towards diminution of the land value for drawing of the overhead lines. Enhanced compensation C.R.P.No.892 of 2009 - A 5 granted by the court below in the given facts of the case appear to be just and reasonable and there is no scope for interference with the impugned order. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-