IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 1073 of 2006() ---------------------- OPEA.614/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UPENDRAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, THEKKEMANGALATHU HOUSE, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK. 2. PRABHAVATHY, W/O.UPENDRAN, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.1073 of 2006 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008 ORDER This revision is preferred against the order of the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P.(E.A.)No.614/02 whereby the court below awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.20,540/- with 9% interest that is Rs.2,540/- as compensation for the yielding trees cut and Rs.18,000/- for diminution of land value. 2. Heard the counsel appear on both sides. 3. A Commissioner had inspected the property and had submitted a report. The court below has also gone through the detailed valuation statement. It is true that the court below has taken into consideration the decision of this Court reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. [2000 (1) KLT 542] and had taken annual return of 5%. In K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] the Apex court has held that each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case. But in this case it is seen that the court has taken into consideration the number of CRP1073/2006 2 yielding trees, their age, their future yielding capacity and thereafter fixed it as 5%. Therefore, it cannot be said that it has been done arbitrarily. Further the amount so granted is only Rs.2,540/-. So far as the diminution of land value is concerned, the court has held that 5 cents of land is covered by the electric line drawn and remaining 7 cents of land has become two plots. The court held that petitioners cannot put up any structure in the property and they will not be in a position to plant any tall trees. Even though it was contended that the land value should be fixed at Rs.15,000/-, the court below fixed a reasonable amount of Rs.5,000/- per cent and fixed the affected area as 5 cents over which the line has been drawn, fixed the diminution of utility at 30% and awarded the compensation for diminution of land value as Rs.18,000/- which appears to be also very reasonable in accordance with law. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and therefore, dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl