IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 304 of 2009() --------------------- OPELE.12/2005 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------ SREERAM BHASKAR @ TOPHY,AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN,KANNARA HOUSE,NEDUMPRAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT: COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,LOCAL OFFICE,AT NANGIARKULANGARA,HARIPPAD. ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON 09/12/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. ----------------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.304 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 9th December, 2011. O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner in O.P.(Ele) No.12/2005 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pathanamthitta. The respondent herein was the respondent in that Original Petition, which was filed by the petitioner under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 42 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act. 2. The case of the revision petitioner is briefly as follows : The petitioner has 75 cents of dry land in Survey Nos.51/4 and 65/2 of Nedumpram village. For the purpose of drawing 220 K.V. electric transmission line from Kayamkulam to Pallom a number of trees have been cut and removed from the property of the petitioner. Only Rs.50,844/- has been awarded as compensation. This is grossly insufficient since 105 is taken as the annual net return for fixing the compensation. The petitioner received the same under protest. The plot of the petitioner has got much commercial importance. It would have fetched Rs.40,000/- per cent during the relevant period. On CRP 304/09 2 account of the drawing of the transmission line, land value has come down considerably. On these grounds, the Original Petition is filed claiming additional compensation to the tune of Rs.16,70,000/-. Out of this, Rs.70,000/- is claimed as additional compensation towards the value of trees. 3. The respondent raised the following contentions : The compensation already fixed is just and reasonable. No diminution in land value has been caused to the plot of the petitioner. There is no scope for granting any enhancement in compensation. The petitioner's claim cannot be allowed as the petitioner received the compensation without any protest. On these grounds, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition. 4. Before the Additional District Court, O.P.(Ele) 12/05 was jointly tried with O.P.(Ele)9/04. PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A8 and Exts.C1 to C3 were marked. The learned Additional District Judge, on considering the evidence awarded Rs.36,612/- as additional compensation for the trees cut and removed and Rs.1,45,038/- was awarded CRP 304/09 3 towards compensation for diminution in land value. Being dissatisfied with the award of compensation under the head of diminution in land value, petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. As per Ext.A1 sale deed, the land value of the comparable land will come to Rs.42,000/- per cent. The learned Additional District Judge, based on Ext.A1, assessed the market value of the land in question as Rs.20,000/- per cent, i.e., Rs.49,400/- per Are. Ext.C3 plan shows that the area injuriously affected due to the drawing of electric line is 14.68 Ares. The learned Additional District Judge accepted that extent assessed by the Commissioner and 20% was taken as the percentage of diminution in land value. It is an admitted fact that 220 KV line was drawn through the property of the revision petitioner having an extent of 75 cents. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the percentage of diminution in land CRP 304/09 4 value can be taken as 25%, instead of 20%. Calculating on that basis, the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.36,260/- more towards compensation for diminution in land value, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Additional District Court. 8. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed and the revision petitioner is allowed to realize a sum of Rs.36,260/- towards enhanced compensation for diminution in land value, in addition to the amount awarded by the Additional District Judge, with 6% interest per annum from the date of Original Petition, till realization, from the respondent. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in this Revision Petition. Sd/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. tgs (True copy) P.S. to Judge.