IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 686 of 2009() --------------------- OPEA.72/2006 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA, HARIPAD, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ THOMAS, S/O.MATHAI, THURUTHEL (MULAKKAL VEEDU), THLAVADY VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON 13/12/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS J., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No.686 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of December, 2011 ORDER The revision petitioner is the respondent in O.P.(E.A.) No.72 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha. The respondent herein had filed the above O.P. under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 51 of the Electricity Act and Section 42 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, claiming additional compensation for cutting of trees and diminution in land value. The revision petitioner has drawn 220 KV transmission line from Kayamkulam-Pallom over the property of the respondent which consists of 40 cents, in Survey No.596/2 of Thalavady village. For the drawing of the line, the revision C.R.P. No.686 of 2009 --: 2 :-- petitioner has cut and removed trees from the property of the respondent, for which the Tahsildar, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., assessed Rs.1,904/- on 4.11.1999. According to the respondent, the amount awarded was not a fair compensation. The income and price of yielding trees shown in the valuation statement are not correct. The line was drawn through the middle of the property and installed a big electric tower in the property. According to the respondent, the entire property has become useless. The market value of the property is Rs.35,000/- per cent and the drawing of the line has diminished the land value. No amount was awarded in this account. The respondent claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for land value occupied for the tower and Rs.2,00,000/- for the remaining affected area. 2. The revision petitioner filed written statement denying the allegations. The petition is bad for non-joinder of Revenue Authorities as necessary party. The Revenue Authorities had prepared a mahazar with a detailed valuation statement showing the C.R.P. No.686 of 2009 --: 3 :-- extent of damage caused on account of drawing of line and stated that the land has not become useless as alleged by the respondent. It was further stated that the respondent has accepted Rs.1,904/- towards compensation under any protest and that the respondent can cultivate medium trees, tapioca plantation etc. and hence the utility of the land is not lost and that the market value shown in the petition is not correct. It is further stated that the said property lies in a remote area and has no industrial or commercial importance. 3. Before the Court below, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Ext.A1 was marked on the side of the respondent. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner. Exts.C1, C1(a) and C1(b) were marked as Court exhibits. 4. The learned Additional District Judge on considering evidence on record awarded Rs.30,000/- as compensation for the 2 cents occupied by the electrical tower and also awarded Rs.2,06,250/- as diminision in land value for 27.5 cents. Thus in total Rs.2,36,250/- together with 6% interest from the date of C.R.P. No.686 of 2009 --: 4 :-- petition is awarded by the learned Additional District Judge. Against that order the respondent filed this C.R.P. 5. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 6. At the time of hearing learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised the following contentions. The Court below has fixed land value at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per cent which is excessive. The utility of the land has not been lost. The Court below ought to have considered the fact that the property is situated in a remote area and has no industrial or commercial importance, while fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per cent. The assessment paid by the Court below is excessive. The Court below has awarded additional compensation for 2 cents at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per cent. The 2 cents of property has not been used for fixing the tower and hence the additional compensation fixed for the tower is excessive. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the Court below. C.R.P. No.686 of 2009 --: 5 :-- 7. There is no dispute that 220 KV electric line was drawn through the property of the petitioner in the O.P., which is having an extent of 40 cents. The advocate commissioner, who filed Ext.C1 report, reported that the electric line is drawn through the middle of the property and 29½ cents of the property is injuriously affected including 2 cents occupied by the electric tower. Based on Ext.C1 report, the Additional District Judge found that the utility of 2 cents was completely lost due to the installation of the electric tower and the land value of 27½ cents of property was diminished by 50% due to the drawal of electric line. Ext.A1 is the copy of the sale deed No.1902/00 dated 3.7.2000. According to the petitioner Ext.A1 property lies 300 meters away from his property. The land value shown in Ext.A1 document is 2½ lakhs for 12.5 cents. The learned Additional District Judge based on Ext.A1 assessed the land value of the property as 15,000/- and awarded Rs.2,06,250/- as compensation for diminution in land value and Rs.30,000/- was awarded as compensation for 2 cents occupied by the electric tower. C.R.P. No.686 of 2009 --: 6 :-- Since the Additional District Judge has awarded only a reasonable amount of compensation, I find no reason to interfere with the award. Accordingly this C.R.P. is dismissed as it is without any merits. There is no order as to costs. M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/