IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 777 of 2004 --------------------- ( OP (ELE).387/1995 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM ) REVN. PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.M.HAMEED, THETTILAYIL HOUSE, PEZHAKKAPPILLY, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. T.M.MUSTHAFA, THETTILAYIL HOUSE, PEZHAKKAPPILLY, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. T.M.RASHEED, THETTILAYIL HOUSE, PEZHAKKAPPILLY, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.E.S.M.KABEER RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, KSEB ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... C.R.P. No. 777 OF 2004 ................................................................................... Dated this the 10th January, 2008 O R D E R For drawing 220 K.V. electric line, several trees in the property belonging to the petitioners were cut. 56 coconut trees, 39 teak trees, 5 jack trees and 99 pepper-vines were among the trees and plants cut and removed. The total extent of the property belonging to the petitioners is 1 acre and 42.50 cents . The Commissioner appointed by the court assessed that the area affected would be 68 cents and 976 Sq. links . This does not appear to have been disputed by both the sides. The Commissioner has reported that the property in question is located about 300 feet away from Perumbavoor- Muvattupuzha National Highway and 300 feet away from Ambalapady- Velloor road. Another road also passes about 300 feet away from the property. The Commissioner has also stated that there is a pocket road leading to the property in question and that the petitioners have vehicular access to the property. 2. As regards the fertility of the land, the Commissioner has reported that it is a very fertile land. Rubber plantations are there nearby. The Commissioner has noted that there are two residential buildings in the property . In paragraph 2 of the report, it is stated thus: “At the time of inspection electric line was not drawn. The proposed electric line passes through the centre of the property. The extent of the land in which trees were cut and removed in the petitioners' property is approximately 68 cents 376 square links.” In paragraph 3 of the report, it is stated as follows: “The respondent has not yet drawn the electric lines, but they fixed the C.R.P. No. 777 OF 2004 2 alignment of the land by removing trees. From the said alignment it may presume that the substantial portion of residential building of the 3rd petitioner will come within the affected area. The residential building of the petitioner 1 and 2 lies about 10 feet away from the affected area.” 3. The Commissioner has assessed that the average yield of the coconut trees would be 240 coconuts per year. The Board has assessed the yield at the rate of 360 coconuts per year. The court below came to the conclusion that the Board has given a reasonable value for the yielding trees. Similarly, for arecanut, the court below accepted the valuation given by the Board. 4. The main contention put forward by the revision petitioner is that the court below did not properly consider the diminution of the land value due to the drawal of the electric line. The existence of residential buildings and how the drawal of the line has affected the petitioners' land was not property considered by the court below, it is contended. It is true that the Commissioner's report has been referred to by the court below. The petitioners had claimed land value at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per cent. The court below held that there is no evidence to arrive at that figure and the value of the land was fixed at Rs.5,000/- per cent. Taking 30% as diminution of land value, the compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per cent . Thus a total sum of Rs. 1,03,464/- was arrived at by the court below as additional compensation to be awarded . 5. I am of the view that the court below was right in holding that the Board has awarded reasonable compensation in so far as the yielding trees cut and removed for C.R.P. No. 777 OF 2004 3 drawing the line. Even the yield assessed by the Commissioner is lower than the yield fixed by the Board . It cannot be said that the court below was wrong in accepting the valuation of the Board in this regard. The Board had granted a total compensation of Rs.2,80,766/-. Taking into account all these facts and circumstances , I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the court below in so far as it relates to the valuation of the trees cut and removed. 6. However, as regards the compensation awarded for diminution of land value, I am of the view that the court below has not properly considered the materials placed before it including the Commissioner's report . The value of the land fixed at Rs. 5,000/- per cent is also too low. In K.S.E.B. vs. Livisha [2007 (3) K.L.T. 1 (SC) ], the Supreme Court held as follows: “The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small track of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion would be determinative. The value of the land would also be a relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, in a given situation may lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used. “ For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. The order of the court below , in so far as it relates to compensation for diminution of land value, is set aside, and the case is remanded to the court below for fresh disposal only on the question as to what compensation should be paid to the petitioners on the ground of C.R.P. No. 777 OF 2004 4 diminution of land value. The enhanced compensation to be paid to the petitioners shall be re-fixed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. No order as to costs. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk