IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 CRP.NO. 591 OF 2007() --------------------------------- OPEA.59/2001 OF DIST & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------- THOMAS EAPEN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O EAPEN, KARIKKATTU PARIYATHUPARAMPIL, THALAVADY SOUTH MURI, THALAVADY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): COUTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, LOCAL OFFICE AT NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPPAD. ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.591 of 2007 ==================================== Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This revision arises from the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P(E.A) No.59 of 2001. For the purpose of drawal of 220 KV transmission line certain improvements were cut and removed from the property of petitioner. Respondent awarded Rs.38,000/- as compensation. Feeling aggrieved petitioner filed O.P(EA) No.59 of 2001 claiming additional compensation. Learned District Judge awarded Rs.10,239/- as enhanced compensation for value of improvements. That order was challenged by the respondent in CRP No.995 of 2004. This Court set aside the order and remitted the case for fresh decision. After remand learned District Judge has awarded Rs.10.239/- as enhanced compensation for value of improvements but no amount was awarded towards compensation for diminution in land value. That award is under challenge in this Revision Petition. Learned counsel contends that the amount awarded for value of improvements is low and that learned District Judge was C.R.P. No.591 of 2007 -: 2 :- nor justified in denying compensation for diminution in land value. Learned counsel for respondent contended that amount awarded for value of improvements itself is exorbitant. According to the learned counsel no evidence is let in to show that drawal of line has injuriously affected the petitioner. 2. So far as compensation awarded for value of improvements is concerned, on going through the order under challenge and hearing counsel on both sides I do not find reason to interfere with the award passed in that regard. What remained is whether petitioner is entitled to get compensation for diminution in land value. It is not disputed that 220 KV electric line was drawn over the property of petitioner. Two yielding coconut trees and five aracanut trees were cut and removed. Learned District Judge has disallowed compensation for diminution in land value for the reason that petitioner has not taken out a commission to assess the diminution in land value. Petitioner proved Ext.A5, assignment deed in respect of a property situated near the property of petitioner. In Ext.A5 land value is shown as Rs.20,000/- per cent. There can be no doubt that drawal of 220 KV line has injuriously affected the land since petitioner is not able to put up building or plant permanent crops C.R.P. No.591 of 2007 -: 3 :- beneath the high tension lines. To that extent petitioner is injuriously affected and that is required to be compensated. 3. So far as land value is concerned Ext.A5 cannot be taken into account. For, parties to that document are not examined and it is not clear in what circumstance that property was acquired and consideration was fixed. However, that can be taken into account for fixing land value. Having regard to Ext.A5 and the circumstances stated by petitioner I am of the view that value of the property in the present case can be fixed as Rs.7,500/- per cent. Considering the injury suffered by petitioner on account of drawl of line, 30% can be fixed as compensation for diminution in land value. So far as extent of land affected is concerned, two yielding coconut trees and five aracanut trees were cut and removed. Having regard to the number of trees involved extent of land affected can be taken as three (3) cents. Thus compensation for diminution in land value will be Rs.6,750/- (7,500x30/100x3). Petitioner is entitled to get the said amount by way of compensation for diminished land value. Petitioner will get interest on the said amount from the date of cutting till realisation. Resultantly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part. Apart C.R.P. No.591 of 2007 -: 4 :- from compensation award by the learned District Judge, petitioner is allowed to recover Rs.6,750/- (Rupees Six thousand seven hundred and fifty only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of cutting till realisation. Parties shall suffer their respective costs in this revision. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv