IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 CRP.No. 71 of 2008() -------------------- OPELE.339/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT ,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NANGIARKULANGARA P.O., HARIPAD. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER: -------------------------- V.DAMODHARAN, VALIYANOCHAYIL, MAHADEVIKADU P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY. ADV. SMT.A.SALINI LAL FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.71 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this 27th day of September, 2010 ORDER This revision is in challenge of order dated 31-07-2007 in O.P(E.A) No.339 of 2002 of the court of learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha. For drawal of 220kv line certain improvements were cut and removed from the property of respondent and Rs.45,533/- was awarded as compensation. Feeling aggrieved, respondent filed petition before the learned Additional District Judge. Learned Additional District Judge has awarded a total sum of Rs.35,409/- by way of enhanced compensation with interest @6% from the date of tree cutting till realisation. That order is under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel for petitioner states that additional compensation awarded is excessive. Learned counsel for respondent supported the order. 2. It is not disputed that for the purpose of drawal of the line 21 yielding coconut trees, 9 coconut saplings, 12 arecanut saplings and few other non yielding trees were cut and removed. So far as details of the improvements are concerned, learned Additional District Judge has not accepted the claim of C.R.P.No.71 of 2008 : 2 : respondent and has accepted statement of petitioner as revealed from the relevant documents. Learned Additional District Judge has taken 5% as annuity instead of 10% taken by petitioner, relying on the decision of this court in Kumba Amma Vs. KSEB (2000(1) KLT 542) and based on that has fixed compensation payable for value of improvements at Rs.77,263.96. Less the amount already paid, additional compensation payable on that account was found to be Rs.35,409.20/- which is rounded to Rs.35,409/-. Though it is contended on behalf of petitioner that the amount awarded is excessive I do not find reason to interfere as the only change learned Additional District Judge has made is in the annuity factor which is based on the decision of this court referred supra. 3. So far as compensation for diminished land value is concerned, considering the extent of improvements involved, learned Additional District Judge has taken the extent of land affected as 10cents which needs no interference. Though Ext.A1, sale deed was produced by the respondent to show land value as Rs.25,000/- per cent, learned Additional District Judge has not accepted that and bearing in mind value given in Ext.A1 has fixed land value at Rs.4,000/- per cent which calls for no interference C.R.P.No.71 of 2008 : 3 : at the instance of petitioner. 30% of the said amount is taken as basis for fixing compensation for diminished land value. Thus compensation payable for diminished land value came to Rs.12,000/-. I am not inclined to think that interest awarded is exorbitant. Respondent is entitled to get interest from the date of cutting since cause of action has arisen on that day. Hence award of interest from the date of cutting is not illegal. Revision petition fails. It is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-