IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 823 of 2008() --------------------- OPELE.119/1998 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/1st RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- THE CHIEF MANAGER, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NAGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: -------------------------- SASIDHARAN, THADAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PARAKKUTTOM P.O., MANAKALA, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010 ALONG WITH CRP NO.846 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NOS.823 & 846 OF 2008 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 O R D E R The above revisions are filed against separate orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pathanamthitta in two original petitions, namely, O.P.(Ele.). No.119 of 1998 and O.P.(Ele.).No.27 of 1999, both filed under Sections 42, 51 and 60 of the Electricity Supply Act and Section 51 of 10 (d) and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act seeking enhanced compensation. The respondents in the revision petitions moved the above original petitions seeking additional compensation for the loss and damages caused to them on account of drawing of overhead lines through their property. The revision petitioner, namely, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation' for the purpose of drawing Kayamkulam - Pallom 220 KV electric line cut and removed some trees from the properties of the claimants. CRP.823 & 846/08 2 2. In O.P.(Ele.).No.119 of 1998, the petitioner/claimant therein was awarded compensation of Rs.27,742/- and in O.P. (Ele.).No.27 of 1999, the claimant was paid a compensation of Rs.51,788/-. In the above petitions, after enquiry and reassessment of the compensation on the basis of the materials produced, the learned District Judge awarded enhanced compensation. The claimant in O.P.(Ele.).No.119 of 1998 was awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.50,756/- directing the Corporation to pay such sum with 6% interest till realisation. The claimant in O.P.(Ele.).No.27 of 1999 was awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.21,850/-, that too realisable with interest as fixed in the order. The order awarding enhanced compensation in O.P.(Ele).No.119 of 1998 was challenged in C.R.P.No.828 of 2008 and the order in O.P. (Ele.).No.27 of 1999 in C.R.PNo.846 of 2008 by the Corporation, and those revisions were disposed setting aside the orders and remitting the cases for fresh consideration. Pursuant to such remand, the present orders have been passed awarding enhanced compensation as indicated above. CRP.823 & 846/08 3 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Perusing the orders impugned in the revisions, it is seen that the learned District Judge had reassessed the compensation fixed by the Corporation adopting annuity return of 5% in lieu of annuity return of 10% adopted by the Corporation taking note of the directions given by this Court in the remand order. This Court, while remitting the case, has directed the court below to follow the guidelines given in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542 (FB)). So much so, there cannot be any challenge with respect to compensation fixed in respect of the trees strictly in compliance with the directions in the remand order of this Court. The only ground canvassed is that the compensation fixed with respect to injurious affection was excessive and unreasonable and also that a higher centage value has been taken by the court which, according to the counsel, was not supported by sufficient data. However, going through the order, I find the learned District Judge has determined the question of diminution of land value after appreciating the materials produced. There is nothing to indicate that the centage value or the percentage of the diminution calculated suffered from any infirmity, leave alone CRP.823 & 846/08 4 jurisdictional infirmity. It is seen that the claim for diminution of land value arise for consideration only in O.P.(Ele).No.119 of 1998, the order of which is challenged in C.R.P.No.823 of 2008. In the other claim petition, the claim was confined to tree cutting compensation alone. In the case of the claimant in O.P.(Ele).No.119 of 1998, in an area of four cents of his land, a tower was put up by the Corporation to facilitate the drawing of the lines. Though the entire land had been practically rendered useless by the putting up of the tower, it is seen the court has granted diminution of land value of 75% only of its centage value assessed. When a tower is put up even though there is no acquisition of land, its utility so far as the owner is concerned, is practically lost and when that be so, he is entitled to have the full centage value assessed. In that view of the matter, I find that the 75% of the centage value granted by the court with respect to the area covered by the tower cannot at all be considered as excessive and unreasonable. The lines drawn over the property was for facilitating the transmission of 220 KV electric line clearly demonstrate that not only the land underneath such lines and also of both sides, which is often stated as a clearing area, are CRP.823 & 846/08 5 practically rendered useless and it cannot be used by the owner of the land. Such clearing area for 220 KV lines, needless to point out, is essential to avoid any mishap and to ensure free flow of energy without any obstruction. The commission report in the case indicate that 47.325 cents of the claimant's land was affected by the drawing of the lines. With reference to the centage value fixing at Rs.3,500/- and calculating the diminution value at 20%, the court has awarded a sum of Rs.33,127.50 as the compensation for injurious affection of the land. That, in the facts and circumstances presented in the case, appears to be just and reasonable. At any rate, it cannot be considered as excessive or unreasonable. In the circumstances, I find there is no merit in the challenge raised against the orders of the court below, and both revisions are dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp