IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH SATURDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2011 / 29TH SRAVANA 1933 CRP.No. 636 of 2009(B) --------------------------------- [O.P(ELE.)478/1995 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P. SANTHALINGAM, S.C. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- MUHAMMED, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.LATE ISMAIL, ELAVAKKATU HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE PARAMBIL. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2011, ALONG WITH C.R.P.NO.646 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.Nos.636, 646, 647, 648, 649 of 2009 and 544 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 20th day of August, 2011 ORDER This is a second round litigation in this Court as regards sufficiency or otherwise of compensation payable due to the drawal of a 110kv high tension line. The said line was drawn through the property of respondents in C.R.P.Nos.636, 646, 647, 648, 649 of 2009 (C.R.P.No.544 of 2010 is filed by the respondent in C.R.P.No.648 of 2009 claiming enhanced compensation). Respondents examined as PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exts.A1 to A18 and C1 to C13. Learned Additional District Judge, Ernakulam (in O.P(Ele).Nos.478, 52, 510, 480 and 521 of 1995, respectively) awarded enhanced compensation for tree cutting and compensation for diminished land value due to drawal of the high tension line by a common order dated 31.01.2004. Respondents challenged those orders in C.R.P.Nos.971, 1005, 1006, 1016 and 1058 of 2004 on various grounds. Petitioner/KSEB filed C.R.P.No.668 of 2005 against the order in O.P(Ele).No.52 of 1995. This Court disposed of the civil revisions on 07.04.2006 whereby additional compensation awarded for value of improvements was confirmed but the C.R.P.Nos.636, 646, 647, 648, 649 of 2009 and 544 of 2010 -: 2 :- original petitions were remitted to the learned Additional District Judge to re-fix compensation payable for diminished land value due to the drawal of the line. After remand, Ext.C31 report of the Advocate Commissioner was marked. Learned Additional District Judge considered compensation payable for diminished land value and on the basis of Ext.A1, sale deed of the year, 1986 fixed land value for the respective plots belonging to the respondents and awarded compensation. That is challenged by petitioner/KSEB in C.R.P.Nos.636, 646, 647, 648 and 649 of 2009. The respondent in C.R.P.No.648of 2009 who is the petitioner in O.P.No.480 of 1995 has filed C.R.P.No.544 of 2010 mainly on two grounds; that compensation was not assessed for the land made totally unusable due to construction of the tower and, secondly, that in respect of one of the two awards passed by the petitioner, no interest was awarded. 2. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioner/KSEB has contended that land value fixed by the learned Additional District Judge based on Ext.A1 is excessive. It is argued that Ext.A1, property is situated abutting the Vazakkala-Kakkanad road while the properties involved are situated away from the said road. It is also contended that learned Additional District Judge was not C.R.P.Nos.636, 646, 647, 648, 649 of 2009 and 544 of 2010 -: 3 :- correct in giving appreciation of 10% on the land value fixed for the plots in question. The percentage of compensation (30%) fixed for diminution is also excessive, it is argued. 3. Learned counsel for respondents/claimants contended that there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge except in O.P.No.480 of 1995. It is contended by learned counsel that it is not as if the same land value was fixed by the learned Additional District Judge for all the plots. It is contended that appreciation fixed by the learned Additional District Judge is in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court and hence no interference is required. Further, it is contended that 1¼ cents of land in O.P.No.480 of 1995 (in C.R.P.Nos.648 of 2009 and 544 of 2010) has been rendered totally unusable due to construction of the tower but learned Additional District Judge assessed compensation @30% of the land value. It is also argued that for the award passed by petitioner/Board for `.6687/-, no interest was awarded. The claimant is entitled to get interest on the said amount @10% per annum from 23.07.1992 to 14.11.1994, it is contended. C.R.P.Nos.636, 646, 647, 648, 649 of 2009 and 544 of 2010 -: 4 :- 4. The question regarding compensation payable for tree cutting has become final. What remained is only compensation for diminished land value. Learned Additional District Judge has placed reliance as Ext.A1 which is a document of the year 1986. There, 7.75cents was purchased for `.1,75,000/- (ie, @22,580/- per cent). But fact remained that the said plot abutted the Vazhakkala-Kakkanad road. At the same time I must bear in mind that tree cutting on the case on hand was in the year 1992. In other words, increase in land value for a period of six years after Ext.A1 has also to be born in mind. A further fact which I should bear in mind is that the plots over which line is drawn do not abut the Vazhakala-Kakkanad road. The plots over which line is drawn come behind Ext.A1, plot. Since the plots are situated at different distances from the said road, there cannot be uniformity in the centage value. 5. But I find from the order under challenge that learned Additional District Judge has taken care of the above and fixed different centage value for the various plots of course, basically relying on Ext.A1, sale deed. I must also understand the booming land value in the area which was fast developing. The situation during 1992 was not the one which existed at the time of Ext.A1, C.R.P.Nos.636, 646, 647, 648, 649 of 2009 and 544 of 2010 -: 5 :- sale deed of the year, 1986. Viewed in that line centage value fixed by the learned Additional District Judge for the different plots over which line has been drawn does not call for interference. 6. The next question is regarding correctness of appreciation given by learned Additional District Judge. Learned Additional District Judge has referred to the various decisions of the Supreme Court as to the extent of appreciation that could be given. While in Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA Bagalkot VS. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib (AIR 2002 SC 1558) appreciation given is 10% per annum for every subsequent year. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun Through its Secretary Vs. Bipin Kumar and Anr. ((2004)2 SCC 283) appreciation given is 15% for every subsequent year. But, in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bali Ram Sharma and Ors. (AIR 2004 SC 4114) it is taken as 5 and 10%, respectively (for the plots in question in that case). 7. From the above decisions, one thing is clear that there cannot be any absolute rule as to what should be the rate of appreciation. That should depend on various circumstances including the utility of the land in question. I stated that the area C.R.P.Nos.636, 646, 647, 648, 649 of 2009 and 544 of 2010 -: 6 :- where the plots are situated is fast developing and that the situation during the time of drawal of the line in the year, 1996 was not as it existed in the year, 1986 (at the time of Ext.A1). Considering these aspects I do not find reason to interfere with the finding of learned Additional District Judge as to the appreciation of 10% for each year. 8. Now, coming to the grievance of the respondent in C.R.P.No.648 of 2009 (who filed C.R.P.No.544 of 2010), it is not disputed before me that a tower was installed in his property for drawal of the line. The extent of land covered by the tower is stated to be 1¼ cents. It is seen that in O.P.No.480 of 1995 (from which C.R.P.Nos.648 of 2009 and 544 of 2010 arise) the total extent of land affected is taken by the learned Additional District Judge as 99 cents which takes in the said 1¼ cents covered by the tower also. When the tower is constructed making use of 1¼ cents, needless to say that the said 1¼ cents is rendered totally unusable and it is almost equivalent to an acquisition. Hence, claimant is entitled to get the entire land value for the 1¼ cents but, it is seen that in O.P.No.480 of 1995 learned Additional District Judge has awarded compensation @30% for the entire 99 cents (including the 1¼ cents covered by C.R.P.Nos.636, 646, 647, 648, 649 of 2009 and 544 of 2010 -: 7 :- the tower). That has to be modified. The compensation for diminished land value awarded @30% of the centage value must be confined to 97¾ cents which after calculation learned counsel has told me, comes to `.8,44,776/-. Full compensation payable for the 1¼ cents (based on centage value fixed by learned Additional District Judge) for diminished land value in O.P.No.480 of 1995 comes to `.35,280/-. Total amount comes to `.8,80,056/-. The award in O.P.No.480 of 1995 is required to be modified accordingly. 9. The next question is regarding the interest payable for the award amount of `.6687/- passed by petitioner/Board. It is pointed out that no interest has been awarded for the said amount. Learned Additional District Judge granted interest @10% per annum for the additional compensation. There is no reason why petitioner should not get interest for the above said amount at the same rate. 10. The result of the above discussion leads me to the conclusion that except the modification which I have stated with respect to the order in O.P.No.480 of 1995, no other change is required. C.R.P.Nos.636, 646, 647, 648, 649 of 2009 and 544 of 2010 -: 8 :- Resultantly these civil revisions are disposed of as follows: (I) C.R.P.Nos.636, 646, 647, 648 and 649 of 2009 are dismissed. (II) C.R.P.No.544 of 2010 is allowed as under: (a) The compensation payable for diminished land value is fixed as `.8,80,056/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Eighty Thousand and Fifty Six Only). Claimant will get interest @10% per annum for the period directed by the learned Additional District Judge on the said amount. (b) The claimant will get interest @10% per annum on the sum of `.6687/- during the period learned Additional District Judge has awarded interest on other claims. (III) Parties shall suffer their respective costs in these civil revisions. Sd/- (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-