IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 CRP.No. 559 of 2008 --------------------- OPELE.64/2005 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT: --------------- HYCINTH MENDEZ, W/O ANTONY MENDEZ, KANACHAKKANATTU HOUSE, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. ADV. MR.SABU GEORGE FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2009, ALONG WITH CRP.NOS.560/2008, 561/2008 AND 541/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.Nos.559, 560 and 561 of 2008 and 541 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009 O R D E R These four revisions arise from orders passed in three claim petitions for enhanced compensation in respect of the drawing of overhead lines through the properties of the claimants in Aroor Village for Aroor-Kalamassery 110 KV electric line drawn by the Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board. The three claim petitions numbered as O.P.57of 2005, 64 of 2005 and 103 of 2005, after enquiry was disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha vide separate orders awarding enhanced compensation. Since all the revisions arise from identical set of facts and as common questions emerge for consideration, the revisions, after being heard together, are disposed under this common order. 2. The Board has filed C.R.P.Nos.559, 560 and 561 of 2008 challenging enhanced compensation awarded to the claimants in the petitions referred to as above and claimant in C.R.P.Nos.559, 560 and 561 of 2008 and 541 of 2009. of 2009 - O 2 O.P.(Ele).No.64 of 2005 has filed the other revision, C.R.P.No.541 of 2009, contending that the enhanced compensation awarded to him is inadequate and unreasonable. 3. C.R.P.No.559 of 2008 is filed against the order dated 20.2.2008 in O.P.(Ele).No.64 of 2005. The Board had awarded a sum of Rs.2,503/- as compensation for the drawing of the overhead line through the property of the respondent in that revision situate in survey Nos.421/12.6 and 421/12-5 of Aroor Village. The court below has awarded a sum of Rs.19,341 to the respondent as enhanced compensation in the above petition. 4. C.R.P.No.560 of 2008 is filed by the Board against the order dated 23.2.2008 in O.P.(Ele).No.103 of 2005. Compensation awarded by the Board at the rate of Rs.625/- to the respondent for drawing overhead lines through her property was enhanced to Rs.12,000/- under the impugned order passed by the court below. 5. C.R.P.No.561 of 2008 is filed against the order dated 22.2.2008 in O.P.No.57 of 2005. Compensation of Rs.3,961/- C.R.P.Nos.559, 560 and 561 of 2008 and 541 of 2009. of 2009 - O 3 awarded to the respondent by the Board has enhanced to Rs.18,970/- by the court below under the impugned order. 6. C.R.P.No.541 of 2008 is filed by the claimant in O.P. (Ele)No.64 of 2005 who was awarded compensation of Rs.2,503/- by the Board against which he had preferred the claim petition and the court below after enquiry awarded Rs.19,341/- as enhanced compensation. Compensation so awarded by the court below is challenged by the claimant as insufficient and inadequate. 7. I heard the counsel on both sides. 8. With reference to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, the impugned orders in the revisions were perused to examine whether there is any impropriety or illegality or jurisdictional infirmity in the enhanced compensation awarded by the court below. In all the claim petitions taking note that the Board has fixed annuity on the basis of 10% return in respect of yielding trees cut and removed the court below following the guidelines in Kumba Amma v. KSEB (2000(1) KLT 542) refixed C.R.P.Nos.559, 560 and 561 of 2008 and 541 of 2009. of 2009 - O 4 the compensation on the basis of 5% return and accordingly awarded enhanced compensation on that ground. No objection was canvassed against the principles followed by the court below in respect of the enhanced compensation awarded towards the cutting and removal of trees by adopting 5% return on the basis of the above referred judicial pronouncement rendered by this Court. The challenge canvassed by the Board was in respect of compensation awarded towards diminution of land value for the drawing of overhead lines contending that despite the drawing overhead lines the land underneath can be profitably used by the claimants for making suitable cultivations and, so much so, the compensation fixed on such count, the extent of land determined as injuriously affected, centage value fixed and percentage of injurious affectation determined etc., are not proper and correct. Overhead lines were drawn over the property of the claimants which are seen to be small plots having extent of about 10 cents or less than that. Claimants have set forth a case that centage value of their land was Rs.75,000/- and a registered document C.R.P.Nos.559, 560 and 561 of 2008 and 541 of 2009. of 2009 - O 5 was produced to show a nearby property was sold at Rs.22,222/- per cent. Court below taking into various aspects involved fixed the land value fixed at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent. The injurious affectation of the land over three cents out of the 11 cents possessed by the claimant in O.P.(Ele).No.64 of 2005 was fixed at 30% and he was awarded compensation of Rs.18,000/- towards diminution in land value. In C.R.P.No.541 of 2008 compensation so awarded to the claimant is challenged as inadequate. In another revision this Court has upheld the value fixed in respect of the land through which electric lines were drawn from the same village in Aroor at Rs.21,500/- is canvassed by the counsel in the revision to contend that the same land value has to be refixed. I do not find any merit in that submission. Without having sufficient material it is not proper and appropriate to follow the centage value fixed in some other case for the sole reason that the land involved through which the lines were drawn was through the same village as covered under the present case. There is no merit in the claim raised by the C.R.P.Nos.559, 560 and 561 of 2008 and 541 of 2009. of 2009 - O 6 claimant for enhanced compensation and also that of the Board challenging compensation fixed towards diminution of land value by the court below. A little bit of arbitrariness in fixation of land value and also determining the percentage of injurious affectation over the land in fixation of compensation payable thereof in the absence of cogent and convincing materials cannot be ruled out. I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned District Judge with respect to the fixation of the compensation for diminution of land value in O.P.(Ele).No.64 of 2005. Revisions filed by the Board and that of the claimant in the circumstances are found to be devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. 9. In C.R.P.No.560 of 2008, which arose from the claim of compensation awarded in O.P(Ele).No.103 of 2005, the affected area was determined as 2 cents and sum of Rs.12,000/- was awarded by the court below for injurious affectation for diminution of land value. Claimant, it is seen, had only five cents of land through which electric lines were drawn, and the centage C.R.P.Nos.559, 560 and 561 of 2008 and 541 of 2009. of 2009 - O 7 value of the land was fixed at Rs.20,000/-. No worth mentioning circumstance was brought before me to disturb the compensation fixed by the court below towards injurious affectation of the land. There is no merit in the revision, C.R.P.No.560 of 2008, to challenge the enhanced compensation awarded in O.P.(Ele) No.103 of 2005. 10. Similar by fixing centage value at Rs.20,000/- and determining injurious affectation at 30% in respect of three cents land out of the 8 cents, through which the electric lines were drawn the court below has awarded compensation of Rs.18,000/- to the claimant in O.P.(Ele)No.57 of 2005 towards diminution of land value. No material has been placed by the Board to assist the court what exactly was the market value of the land as and when the lines were drawn in the above land. It is noticed the claimants have produced registered documents show that the centage value varied from Rs.20,000-49000 and the learned District Judge on the available materials fixed the market value at Rs.20,000/- per cent, and determination of injurious affectation C.R.P.Nos.559, 560 and 561 of 2008 and 541 of 2009. of 2009 - O 8 was limited to two or three cents in respect of plots possessed by the claimants. Compensation awarded towards cutting and removal of trees as well as diminution of land value, it is noticed, has been ascertained and fixed by the learned District Judge taking note of the decision of the apex court in Livisha v. KSEB (2007 (3) KLT 1) and following the sound legal principles applicable. There is no impropriety or illegality in the compensation awarded in the three original petitions. All the revisions filed challenging the compensation awarded in the OPs are meritless, and all of them are dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-