IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 CRP.No. 1923 of 2003() ---------------------- OPELE.215/1997 of DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ NARAYANI NANU, EDAYATHU VEEDU, MARUTHORUVATTOMKARA, THANNEERMUKKOM VADAKKU VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALLEPPEY. BY ADVS. MR.C.V.MANUVILSAN, SMT.K.VIDYA, MR.M.R.VIBIN. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2010 ALONG WITH CRP.NO.809 OF 2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.2019/2009 IN CRP.NO.1923/2003 DISMISSED 08/01/2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.Nos. 1923 OF 2003 AND 809 OF 2006 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- ORDER These revisions have been filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as K.S.E.B, in respect of compensation awarded in two claim petitions, O.P (Ele.) No.215 of 1997 and O.P(Ele.) No.32 of 2003 by the common respondents/claimants in those two petitions towards the drawing of overhead electrical lines for Aroor- Mararikulam 110 KV electric line. Some of the trees situate in the property of the petitioner situate in survey No.21/2-1 of Kokkothamangalam village were cut down by the K.S.E.B. Towards the compensation thereof, a sum of Rs.25,093/- was paid to the claimants. Later, an area of 2.5 cents comprised in the petitioner's property was also utilised for erecting a tower to draw the overhead electric line through his property. No compensation was paid separately for erecting the tower. Dissatisfied with the compensation provided, the claimant filed two petitions, O.P(Ele.) No.215 C.R.P.Nos. 1923 OF 2003 AND 809 OF 2006 Page numbers of 1997 and O.P(Ele.) No.32 of 2003. The former petition was filed to claim compensation for the cutting and removal of trees and also the injurious affectation caused by the drawing of the line and the latter petition towards the compensation for erecting the tower in her property. The two petitions were separately tried and disposed by separate orders. A sum of Rs.96,275/- was awarded as compensation in O.P (Ele.) No.215/1997 and a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for erecting the tower in the petitioner's property. C.R.P No. 1923 of 2003 is filed against the compensation awarded in O.P No.215 of 1997 and C.R.P No. 809 of 2006 against the award passed in respect of the tower erected in O.P (Ele.) No. 32 of 2003. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Though several grounds are raised in the revision impeaching the correctness of the compensation fixed and awarded by the court, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the Board confined his submissions to assail the fixation of the land value on the basis of which compensation was awarded towards injurious affectation of the land and also for erecting C.R.P.Nos. 1923 OF 2003 AND 809 OF 2006 Page numbers the tower. The court below has not accepted the value stated over the property in the document produced by the claimant and also the assessment made by the advocate commissioner after discarding the valuations made in the document and that of the commissioner, and on mere surmises the court has arbitrarily fixed the centage value of the property as Rs.9,000/- and then proceeded to fix the compensation in O.P (Ele.) No. 215 of 1997, according to the counsel. However, in respect of the tower erected, the centage value was taken as Rs.10,000/- and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded as compensation. The court below, according to the counsel, without any material assessed the injurious affectation over the land at 40 % and that too in respect of 25 cents as having been affected by the drawing the overhead lines and awarded compensation. There was no data before the court as to the area affected and also to sustain the percent fixed as above in awarding such compensation is the submission of the counsel. The injurious affectation over the land was determined on the basis of the commission report and also the evidence of C.R.P.Nos. 1923 OF 2003 AND 809 OF 2006 Page numbers PW1, the son of the claimant is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. It is further submitted, no objections were filed to the claim petitions by the Board and not even to the commission report filed in the case. In such circumstances, challenges raised against the compensation awarded by the court below by way of revision is clearly unsustainable is the submission of the counsel. 3. Considering the orders passed by the learned District Judge which are challenged in the revision, I find that while awarding compensation for the area covered by the tower, ie, 2.5 cents of land it has failed to take notice that that land was also covered by 25 cents in respect of which compensation was already awarded at 40% of the centage value fixed for injurious affectation. Without noticing that, the court below has awarded Rs.25,000/- for 2.5 cents of land where tower was erected. Though I find that there is discrepancy relating to valuation fixed with respect to the awarding of compensation for the land injuriously affectated and that of the land where the tower C.R.P.Nos. 1923 OF 2003 AND 809 OF 2006 Page numbers was erected, as it is conceded that the tower was put up at a later point of time, I find that discrepancy in valuation of land need not be given much significance. In assessing the compensation payable for injurious affectation, it is evident that the court has relied on the evidence of the witness, examined as PW1, and also the commission report. On the materials placed, I find the challenge that there was an arbitrary fixation over the value of the land and also the extent of land injuriously affected cannot be sustained. The commissioner has reported that an area of over 32 cents was affected by the drawing of overhead lines, but, the court has limited it to 25 cents. The advocate commissioner has reported that the centage value of the property is Rs.12,000/-. True, that was based on opinion collected from local people and not on any worthy mentioning material. Still, the assessment made by the court that the centage value for fixing the compensation of the 25 cents of property injuriously affected can be fixed at Rs.9,000/-, in the given facts of the case, does not call for any interference. However, with respect to the compensation awarded for the C.R.P.Nos. 1923 OF 2003 AND 809 OF 2006 Page numbers area covered by the tower, in respect of which diminution value of 40% of such land had been granted while considering the injurious affectation of the land by drawing of the overhead lines, to that extent modification of the compensation fixed by the court below is called for. That being so, it is found that compensation fixed in respect of the 2.5 cents of land where tower was erected has to be limited to Rs.16,000/- instead of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the court below. The interest provided on the compensation awarded by the court shall remain unchanged. In the result, C.R.P No.1923 of 2003 is dismissed and C.R.P No.809 of 2006 modified to the extent indicated above limiting the compensation for erection of tower to Rs.16,000/-. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv