IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 409 of 2009() --------------------- OPELE.74/2005 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------- ROY, S/O.JOSEPH, KILIKKIDAYIL FROM PARIMANATH, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUTH BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jma P. BHAVADASAN, J --------------------------- C.R.P.No.409 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The respondent Board, utilised the property of the petitioner for drawing a 110 KV line. The board awarded a sum of Rs.9666/- as compensation. Dissatisfied with the same the petitioner approached the District Court for enhanced compensation. 2. The District Court on an earlier occasion awarded Rs.6444/- as enhanced compensation for the trees cut and removed and for diminution ion land value. Both the parties challenged the award before this court. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the revision petition filed by the Board was allowed. This court observed that the court below on an earlier appeal Kumba Amma Vs. KSEB 2000 (1) KLT 542 no longer good law for consideration. It is also observed that there is no evidence C.R.P.409/09. 2 to show the five cents of land was affected by the drawing of the line. 3. After remand the court below retained the enhanced rate at Rs.6444 itself. The court considered the claim for diminution in land value. The court below considered the affected area as four cents and the value of land was taken as 15,000/-. Diminution in land value was assessed at 30%. Accordingly 18,000/- was given as compensation towards diminution in land value. The said order is challenged in this court. 4. The learned counsel pointed out that that there is no justification in taking the affected area as four cents only and reducing the land value also. The petitioner’s counsel says that the land value was much more than as taken by the court. Petitioner had also produced two documents to show that even in 1993 land value is Rs.15,000/-. Therefore in 1999 when lines are drawn, obviously price must have gone C.R.P.409/09. 3 up. Learned counsel pointed out that at least Rs.20,000/- should have been taken as value of land. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that even now the amount granted for diminution in land value is on the higher side. According to the respondents the order of the lower court is based on the materials before it. Accordingly it is stated that there is no ground to interfere with the order of the court below. 6. It must be noticed that earlier, the Board has taken objection to the land taken as well as price for computing diminution in land value. On earlier occasion the value of land taken was Rs.20,000/- Then this court did not appreciate it for want of evidence, considering that the land valule in 1993 was Rs.15,000/-. Obviously, it would have gone up at lease to Rs.20,000/- per cent. Affected area taken and percentage of diminution in land value taken are reasonable and did not call for interference. So the amount C.R.P.409/09. 4 towards diminution in land value is 20000 x 4 x 30/100 = Rs.24000/- 7. In the result, he petitioner is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.6000/- with 7.5 % interest from the date of petition till realization. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. Sou.