IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 CRP.No. 465 of 2008() --------------------- OPELE.84/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB SRI. P. SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- BASHEER, S/O.ISMAILKUNJU, CHOLAPARRAMBIL, PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA-4. ADV. SRI.C.A.RAJEEV FOR R THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON 15/11/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No: 465 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of November, 2011 ORDER This C.R.P. is filed by the respondent Kerala State Electricity Board in O.P.(Ele.) No. 84 of 2003 on the file of Additional District Court, Alappuzha. Respondent herein is the petitioner in that case which was filed under Sections 10 to 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act. 2. The respondent in O.P. (Ele.) No. 84 of 2003 cut and removed certain trees from the property of the petitioner in Sy.Nos.384/7-2 of Punnapra village in Ambalapuzha Taluk for drawing Punnapra-Edathua 110 KV line over the property for which a compensation of Rs.10,157/- was awarded which the petitioner received under protest. Challenging the award as illegal and unreasonable the original petition was filed seeking additional compensation for the trees cut and also claiming compensation for diminution in land value. C.R.P. No: 465 of 2008 :2: 3. Respondent in O.P. filed objection contending that adequate compensation was awarded taking into consideration all relevant aspects and hence no additional amount is payable under any head. 4. No evidence was adduced by the petitioner. Ext.B1 valuation statement was marked on the side of respondent. The learned Additional District Court passed an award for enhancement of compensation allowing the petitioner to recover Rs.15,755/- together with 6% interest from the respondent from the date of cutting of rubber trees till realisation. Against that award the respondent filed this C.R.P. 5. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 6. At the time of argument learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised the following contentions: (i) The Court below should have found that the Board had awarded adequate compensation. (ii) In the absence of evidence to show the land value and affected area, the Court erred in granting the diminution in land value by assumption and presumptions. C.R.P. No: 465 of 2008 :3: 7. In the original petition, the petitioner claimed Rs.2,02,000/- as enhanced compensation for the trees cut. 4 yielding coconut trees and 6 coconut saplings were cut and removed besides some other trees like anjili, mahogany and manjiam. No enhancement of compensation was awarded by the Additional District Court for non-yielding trees as compensation was already paid by way of tree value. With regard to the 4 yielding coconut trees the Additional District Court allowed enhancement of Rs.9,355/- based on the principle laid down in the full bench decision reported in Kumba Amma v. KSEB (200(1) KLT 542). 8. Since the learned Additional District Judge has awarded only a reasonable enhancement I find no reason to reduce the enhanced compensation for the yielding coconut trees cut and removed. 9. The petitioner claimed Rs.1.5 lakhs as compensation for diminution in the land value. The petitioner was in possession of 12 cents of property. According to the petitioner 8 cents of property has become completely useless on account of the drawal of C.R.P. No: 465 of 2008 :4: 110 K.V power line. Taking into consideration the number of trees cut, the Additional District Judge fixed the area of the injurious affection as 4 cents and the extent of injurious affection is assessed as 20%. The Additional District Judge fixed the land value as Rs.8,000/- per cent in the light of the fixation of land value in similar cases. Calculating on that basis the Additional District Judge assessed Rs.6,400/- towards diminution of land value, thus the Additional District Judge assessed total enhancement as Rs.15,755/- (Rs.9,355/- + Rs.6,400/-). Since the Additional District Judge awarded only just and reasonable enhanced compensation, I find no reason to interfere with the award. Accordingly this C.R.P. is dismissed as it is without any merits. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in this C.R.P. M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/