IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 CRP.NO. 639 OF 2008() ---------------------------------- OPELE.395/2002 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA KAYAMKULAM,, REP. BY ITS MANAGER BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- DAMODARAN.K., CHANGAYIL PO., MAHADEVIKADU. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.639 of 2008 ==================================== Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010 O R D E R Revision is in challenge of order dated March 16, 2005 in O.P(Ele.) No.395 of 2002 of the court of learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha awarding additional compensation to the tune of Rs.94,587/- towards compensation for improvements cut and removed and for diminution in land value due to drawal of the 220 KV line through the property of respondent. It is not disputed that 26 yielding coconut trees were cut and removed from the property of petitioner for which Rs.73,800/- was awarded by the petitioner. Respondent claimed additional compensation for value of improvements. He also claimed compensation for diminution in land value due to drawl of high tension line. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that compensation awarded by the learned District Judge is excessive. 2. So far as additional compensation for value of improvements is concerned, it is based on Exts.A6 and A7, detailed valuation statement and list of trees cut and removed. Learned District Judge accepted claim of petitioner regarding number of trees cut, yield, etc. Petitioner had taken 10% as C.R.P. No.639 of 2008 -: 2 :- annuity factor. But that was not accepted by the learned District Judge and relying on the decision in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 [1] KLT 542 (F.B.) 5% was taken as annuity for awarding compensation for value of improvements. Compensation payable on that basis came to Rs.1,41,146.81 and less the sum of Rs.73,559.92 already awarded, balance amount due came to Rs.65,586.89. That amount was awarded. Though it is contended that additional compensation awarded for value of improvements is excessive I do not find reason to interfere as the only change made is in the annuity factor which is based on the Full Bench decision referred to supra. 3. So far as claim for compensation for diminution in land value is concerned, though no commission was taken out to determine the extent of land affected, learned District Judge has fixed it as 18 cents accepting version of respondent as P.W.1 and taking into account the fact that 26 yielding coconut trees were cut and removed. Considering the nature and number of trees cut and removed I do not find reason to interfere that view of learned District Judge. 4. So far as land value is concerned Ext.A1, assignment deed No.2559/1997 was pressed into service by the respondent. C.R.P. No.639 of 2008 -: 3 :- As per that document value of land referred to therein is Rs.20,000/- per cent. Though Ext.A1 was not accepted by the learned District Judge, considering importance of the locality as it came out in the evidence of respondent land value was fixed as Rs.5,000/- per cent. There can be no dispute that drawal of the high tension line has resulted in diminution in land value as respondent cannot put up structures or cultivate permanent crops in the clearance area. Hence learned District Judge has awarded Rs.27,000/- as compensation for diminution in land value for 18 cents which means 15% of the land value per cent (Rs.5,000/-) has been taken as the basis. That award cannot be said to be exorbitant calling for interference. Total amount of compensation awarded is Rs.94,587/-. Interest awarded is only reasonable – 6% per annum. It is seen that interest has been awarded only from the date of petition. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Civil Revision Petition fails and it is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv