IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 479 of 2008() --------------------- OPELE.6/2004 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER --------------------------------------------- JANARDHANAN PILLAI, S/O.VELU PILLAI, PUTHUR VEEDU, PUNNAPRA P.O, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.K.K.MANGALANANDAN FOR R SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT) FOR R THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2011, THE COURT ON 29/11/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS J., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No.479 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011 ORDER This C.R.P. is filed by the respondent in O.P.(Ele.) No. 6 of 2004 on the file of Addl. District Court, Alapuzha. The respondent herein was the petitioner in that O.P. which was filed under Sections 10 to 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act. 2. The facts of the case is briefly as follows. The revision petitioner herein cut and removed certain trees from the property of the respondent in Sy.No.376/5 of Punnapra village for drawing Punnapra-Edathua 110 KV line over the property for which a compensation of Rs.5,785/- was awarded, which he received under protest. Challenging the award as illegal and reasonable, O.P. was C.R.P. No.479 of 2008 :2: filed seeking additional compensation for the trees cut and also claiming compensation for diminution in land value by the respondent herein. 3. The respondent in the O.P. filed objections contending that adequate compensation was awarded taking into consideration all relevant aspects and hence no additional amount is payable under any head. 4. The Addl. District Judge on considering the evidence on record awarded Rs.29,812/- towards enhanced value of 3 yielding coconut trees and Rs.27,000/- was awarded towards compensation in diminution in land value. Against that order, the revision petitioner filed this C.R.P. 5. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Relying on Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha (2007(3) K.L.T. 1) learned counsel for the Board contended that determination of compensation made by the Court below is not in consonance with the principles and guidelines given by the apex C.R.P. No.479 of 2008 :3: Court and so much so, the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge suffers from jurisdictional infirmity and thus liable to be interfered with in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Perusing the impugned order, it is seen that the Board had assessed the compensation towards the value of trees cut and removed at 10% annuity and the Court below taking note of the principles laid down in Kumba Amma v. Kerala State Electricity Board (2000(1) K.L.T. 542) passed by this Court, reassessed the compensation payable for fixing such compensation at 5% annuity. I find nothing in the decision rendered by the apex court in Livisha's case (supra) to hold that the assessment of the compensation following the principles laid down in Kumba Amma's case (supra) cannot be made applicable depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The apex Court has held that compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees are concerned, the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course in a case where it is shown that fixation of C.R.P. No.479 of 2008 :4: compensation at 5% annuity would cause prejudice or injury to any of the parties involved depending upon the facts and circumstances in the case, a different yardstick can be applied for. No such special circumstance is made out in the present case to hold that the principles laid down in Kumba Amma's case are inapplicable to the case. 9. According to the petitioner due to the drawing of electric line, his 42 cents of property have been injuriously affected. According to the Commission report, the area affected is only 9.139 cents. The learned Addl. District Judge on considering the evidence on record assessed the area injuriously affected as 9 cents and assessed the percentage of diminution in land value as 30%. The petitioner produced Ext.A1 document relating to a property, which is 1 k.m. away from the petitioner's property. The sale consideration shown in Ext.A1 is Rs.2,81,875/-. Considering the nature of the property, the learned Addl. District Judge assessed the market value of the petitioner's property as Rs.10,000/- per cent. Calculating on that basis, diminution in land value is assessed as C.R.P. No.479 of 2008 :5: Rs.27,000/-. As the learned Addl.District Judge awarded only a just and reasonable compensation, I find no reason to interfere with the order. Accordingly this C.R.P. is dismissed. M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/