IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1120 of 2004 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 9.6.2004 IN ELE.OP.NO.OF THE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT IN O.P: ------------------------------------ THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS IN O.P: -------------------------------- 1. C.B.CHACKO, KOCHU KUNNEL, VELLAMTHADATHIL, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 2. C.B.ANNAMMA, KOCHUKUNNEL, -DO- -DO-. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1120 OF 2004 E -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th January, 2008 O R D E R The Kerala State Electricity Board challenges the order in Ele.O.P.No.14 of 1995, on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Ernakulam, by which the court below granted additional compensation of Rs.1,64,864/- on account of the trees cut from the property of the respondents. 2. For the purpose of drawing HPC-Piravom 110 KV line, the Board cut and removed 65 yielding rubber trees, seven yielding pepper wines and one jack tree from the property belonging to the respondents. The total extent of the property is one acre and 40 cents. The Board awarded a sum of Rs.17,926/- as compensation. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Board, the respondents herein filed Ele.O.P.No.14 of 1995 before the court below. 3. Before the court below, PW1 was examined on the side of the claimants and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. The Commissioner who inspected the property submitted Exts.C1 and C2 reports. On behalf of the Board, no evidence was adduced and no documents were produced. C.R.P. NO. 1120 OF 2004 :: 2 :: 4. The Commissioner inspected the property and conducted sample tapping of rubber trees. It was found that 17.2 kg of dry rubber was obtained per tree. Deducting 1/3 of the quantity towards expenses, the balance came to 11.4 kg. Taking the market value of the rubber at the time of cutting at Rs.23 per kg., the court below held that the capitalised value of one tree would be Rs.2,366/-. It was also observed that the said calculation was not effectively challenged by the Board. On the basis of the data furnished by the Commissioner in his report, the court below held that the capitalised value of 65 rubber trees would be Rs.1,53,790/-. Towards slaughter tapping, Rs.100/- per tree was also granted, the total amount awarded on that count being Rs.6,500/-. 5. As regards diminution in land value, the court below held that the land value can be fixed at Rs.3,000/- per cent, as against the claim of Rs.10,000/- made by the respondents herein. Taking 30% of the value of the land as the basis, the court below held that the respondents are entitled to a sum of Rs.22,500/- as compensation on account of the diminution in land value. 6. The court below held that the claimants/respondents herein are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,82,790/- and after deducting the amount already paid, they are entitled to Rs.1,64,864/- as additional compensation. C.R.P. NO. 1120 OF 2004 :: 3 :: 6. The court below has approved the sample tapping conducted by the Commissioner and has also accepted the data furnished by him in his report. The Board could not effectively challenge the same by any acceptable evidence or materials. In fact, no evidence was adduced by the Board before the court below. The data collected by the Commissioner is based on a practical physical verification. Those data cannot be rejected. The capitalised value was fixed by the Board only on surmises and not on the basis of any physical verification or study conducted by them. When concrete evidence was made available before Court and it was not effectively challenged by the Board, it cannot be said that the court below erred in granting the enhanced compensation. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion made by the court below and hold that the amount awarded as additional compensation is just and reasonable. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no ground to interfere with the well considered order passed by the court below. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/