IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 C.R.P.No. 410 of 2008(D) --------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/11/2007 OF THE HONOURABLE ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ALAPUZHA IN O.P(ELE)NO.71/2005) REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------------- SANTHAMMA, W/O.THANKAPPAN PILLAI, DEEPIKA, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. DR.V.N. MADHUSUDANAN - R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.R.P.No. 410/2008 ORDER ON I.A. NO.1140 OF 2008 IN C.R.P. NO.410 OF 2008 DISMISSED SD/- 29/08/2008 M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRP.No. 410 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2008 ORDER Kerala State Electricity Board is challenging the award passed by Additional District Court, Alappuzha in O.P(ele) 71 of 2005 for drawing Kalamassery-Aroor 110 KV line through the property of respondent in Survey No.412/1A of Aroor Village. A compensation of Rs.547/- was awarded being the value of one coconut tree which was cut and removed. Compensation was received under protest. Respondent filed the petition before District Court for enhanced compensation contending that there is diminution in the land value for which no compensation was awarded. Learned District Judge, based on the evidence of Ext.A1 and B1 granted an enhanced compensation of Rs.12,138/- finding that there will be diminution of land value to the extent of 30% in respect of two cents of the property through which the line has been drawn. The award is challenged in this petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondent were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for CRP 410/2008 2 petitioner is that learned District Judge awarded compensation based on the decision in Kumbhamma V. KSEB (2000(1) KLT 542)which was subsequently modified by Apex Court in Lavisha V. K.S.E.B(2007(3) KLT 1). But based on Kumbhamma's case, only a compensation of Rs.12,138/- was granted. I do not find it necessary to interfere with the said enhanced compensation. 4. With regard to diminution of land value, learned District Judge found that in Ext.A1 order of CRP 1271 of 2003, for the neighbouring property, market value of Rs.30,000/- was fixed. Learned District Judge has fixed the land value at Rs.20,000/- and finding that there is diminution of land value to the extent of 30%, granted enhancement of Rs.12,000/-. I do not find any illegality or irregularity, warranting interference. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-