IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.NO. 203 OF 2008() --------------------- {OPELE.171/2003 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- K.G.UDAYAN, PUTHUVELIL, KUMARAPURAM. ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.203 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010 O R D E R Revision is directed against the awarding of enhanced compensation to the respondent/claimant by the learned additional District Judge, Mavelikkara in O.P.No.41/03, towards the loss and injury suffered by the drawing of the overhead electric lines through his property. The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, the revision petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'}, for the purpose of drawing Kayamkulam-Pallom 220 KV electric line, cut and removed a number of trees from the property of the respondent {hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant'}. Towards the loss suffered by the claimant, the Corporation assessed and paid a sum of Rs.71,024/- as compensation. 2. Dissatisfied with the sum awarded, the claimant preferred the above petition seeking enhanced compensation. The claim was C.R.P.No.203 of 2008 :: 2 :: resisted by the Corporation contending that just and reasonable compensation had already been paid. The learned District Judge, after appreciating the materials placed, re-assessed the compensation payable and awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.60,942/- to the claimant. Compensation so awarded is challenged by the Corporation as excessive and unreasonable. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the Corporation. 4. Admittedly, the Corporation has assessed the compensation payable towards the trees cut and removed adopting annuity return of 10%. The learned District Judge, following the guidelines in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. {2000 (1) K.L.T. 542}, re-assessed the compensation adopting annuity return of 5%. Though the Apex Court in a later decision K.S.E.B. v. Livisha and others {2007(3) K.L.T. 1} has held that the C.R.P.No.203 of 2008 :: 3 :: principles evolved in Kumba Amma's case are not correct and a different method as laid down in that decision is more suitable in the matter of adjudging compensation payable towards the cutting and removal of trees for the drawing of lines, having regard to the quantum of compensation and also the number of trees cut and removed from the property of the claimant, I find, a further enquiry over the claim canvassed by the claimant is uncalled for. 5. It is seen from the impugned order that several yielding trees were cut and removed, which included 15 teak wood trees, to facilitate the drawing of the lines though the property of the claimant. The enhanced compensation awarded by the court below towards the trees cut and removed at Rs.45,942/-, in the given facts of the case, cannot be treated as excessive and unreasonable. Towards the C.R.P.No.203 of 2008 :: 4 :: diminution of the land value suffered by the claimant on account of the drawing of the lines, the court below has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-. It has come out from evidence that the property of the claimant is having an extent of 14 cents. The lines drawn by the Corporation through that property is 220 KV line which normally cover an area of 8 meters with further clearing area of 6 metres on both sides. The claimant is prevented from putting up any structure of considerable height under the lines or of growing any high yielding tall trees. Practically, the utility of the land, to a considerable extent, is lost to the claimant by the drawing of the lines. Viewed in that back drop, a sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the court below towards injurious affection suffered on account of the lines with reference to the market value of the land can only be C.R.P.No.203 of 2008 :: 5 :: considered as just and reasonable. Suffice to state that the additional compensation awarded by the court below to the claimant does not warrant any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction vested with this court. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//