IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 573 of 2008() --------------------- OPEA.107/2000 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/ADDL. 3RD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHOOLATHERVU.P.O, HARIPAD. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------- NARAYANA PILLAI, S/O.LATE KESAVA PILLAI, MANJAYIL KARIYIL HOUSE, POOVANTHURUTHU.P.O. ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010 ALONG WITH C.R.P.NO.594/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NOS.573 & 594 OF 2008 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 O R D E R These revisions are filed against the orders passed by the Additional District Judge, Kottayam awarding enhanced compensation in O.P.(EA).No.107 of 2000 and O.P.(EA). No.108 of 2000, both filed under Section 42 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act and Sub sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act. 2. C.R.P.No.573 of 2008 is filed against the order in O.P. (EA).No.107 of 2000 and C.R.P.No.594 of 2008 against the order in O.P. (EA).No.108 of 2000. 3. Previously, the enhanced compensation awarded by the court below in the two original petitions earlier had been set aside by this Court in revisions remitting the cases for fresh consideration with some directions. Pursuant to such CRP.573/08 & 594/08 2 remission, complying with the directions given in the remand order, the impugned orders have been passed. At the time of hearing, it is submitted that this Court while remitting the cases earlier had directed the court below to reassess the compensation following the guidelines given in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542 (FB)). So far as the tree cutting compensation awarded in the present case, there is no dispute that the assessment had been made strictly in accordance with the directions given in the remand order. So much so, that part of the enhanced compensation awarded by the court below does not arise for scrutiny in these revisions. 4. The only challenge canvassed in these revisions is that the court below in fixing the compensation towards the area for putting up towers and also the claim for diminution of land value canvassed by the claimants has fixed the centage value and also the percentage of injurious affection on a higher side without sufficient data. The claims have arisen on account of loss and damages caused by the drawing of 220 KV lines through the properties of the claimant. When that be so, CRP.573/08 & 594/08 3 it has to be taken note that the land underneath the lines and also that of the clearing area cannot be profitably used by the land owners as it was done earlier. Such clearing area for 220 KV lines, needless to point out, is essential to avoid any mishap and to ensure free flow of energy without any obstruction. Clearance made in the property of the claimants was for drawing 220 KV electric lines has to be taken note in examining the challenge against the compensation given for diminution of land value. In O.P.(EA).No.107 of 2000, the court has fixed the centage value at Rs.8000/-. On the basis of the materials produced in the case, the court below awarded a sum of Rs.32,000/- for the four cents of land taken for putting up a tower, and towards diminution of land value by the drawing of lines, the area of which was determined as eight cents, on the above centage value as above and fixing 20% as the injury suffered, the court has awarded Rs.12,800/-. I find that the assessment made by the court is just and reasonable and no interference is called for. 5. In the other case, O.P.(EA).No.108 of 2000, adopting CRP.573/08 & 594/08 4 the same centage value and percentage of injury, the court has awarded a sum of Rs.27,200/- for the affected area of 17 cents, and that can only be considered as just and proper. I find no interference with the orders passed by the court below awarding the enhanced compensation as fixed in such orders is called for. Revisions are dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp