IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 1170 of 2005(B) ----------------------- OPEA.378/2002 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT. --------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS. ----------------- 1. BHASKARAN, BAIJU BAHVAN, THAMARAKULAM KIZHAKKE, THAMRAKKULAM VILLAGE. 2. PONNAMMA, DO. DO. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.1170 of 2005 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17th June, 2008. O R D E R Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., respondent, in OP (EA) No.378/2002, on the file of the Additional District Court, Alappuzha, is the revision petitioner. Respondents are the petitioners. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded for the drawing of Kayamkulam-Edamom 220 KV electric line through their property, in survey Nos.294/1 and 2 of Thamarakkulam Village, respondents filed a petition under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, read with Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. Total compensation of Rs.30,568/= was awarded, being the value of the trees cut and removed from the property. Respondents contended that due to the drawing of the line, property has become completely useless, and it cannot be put to any use, and value and utility of the property also has been reduced. Contending that property would have fetched a value of Rs.20,000/= per cent, respondents claimed compensation of Rs.5,73,960/=. Petitioner resisted the claim CRP.No.1170/2005 2 contending that the value and utility of the property was not diminished, on account of the drawing of the line and adequate compensation was awarded, which is reasonable. The District court, on the evidence of PW.1 and Exts.A1 to A6 granted an enhanced compensation to Rs.12,631/= . It is challenged in this petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that enhanced compensation granted is unreasonable. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the impugned order of the District Judge, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference. As against the compensation of Rs.30,568/= awarded, District Judge found that value of trees awarded was not proper and respondents are entitled to a compensation of Rs.28020.76 as against Rs.15,407.30 awarded. Enhanced compensation was granted for pepper vines and coconut trees. No additional compensation was awarded for diminished land value. The CRP.No.1170/2005 3 enhanced compensation awarded is reasonable. I find no illegality or irregularity in the order. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Revision Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.