IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 914 of 2006() --------------------- OPELE.229/2000 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------------------ P.E. PERUMAL @ THANKACHAN, S/O. EDUKULA, PUTHEN PARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDUMPRAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 914 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 21stday of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Additional District Judge, Pathanamthitta, in OP (Ele) 229/00. The court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.30,577/- i.e. Rs.19,680/- for diminution of land value and Rs.10,897/- for the trees cut. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner strongly contends before me that in the light of the decision of the Apex court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case and therefore the uniform application of 5% annuity relying upon the decision in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. [2000 (1) KLT 542] cannot be accepted. 3. Under ordinary circumstances, I would have been inclined to remand the case. But on a perusal of the award, I think that there are sufficient materials to decide the case here itself. There are 9 yielding coconut trees and 3 yielding areacanut trees standing in the property. The court below has applied its mind as well. The court below has considered the age of the trees its utilitarian value and other aspects and then only had fixed the percentage of return as 5% instead of 10%. It is true that it has not elaborately written but the existence and description of the trees makes C.R.P. NO.914/06 2 it very clear of that aspect. It can be seen that the future yielding capacity of the trees had been taken in between 48 to 60 years, which is a governing factor to take the value of the trees. I feel sufficient materials are available and therefore it can be seen that the additional compensation awarded is not excessive at all. So far as diminution of the land value is concerned, petitioner claimed value at Rs.30,000/- per cent and Ext.A2 document was produced. The court took into consideration the report of the Commissioner and it found that the drawing of the line is diagonal and the affected portion of the land is only about 9.84 cents. It further found that construction of multiple stored buildings and planting of tall trees become impossible. So with all the materials available including the oral testimony of PWs 1 & 2 and RW 1, the court fixed the land value at Rs.10,000/- per cent calculated the percentage of diminution of the land value at 20% for the affected area of 9.84 cents and granted a compensation of Rs.19,680/-. This was also on the basis of materials available before the court . Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the award passed by the court below. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.914/06 3