IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 CRP.No. 101 of 2008() --------------------- OP(ELE.) NO.94/2004 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER -------------------------- JANAKI AMMA, AGED 81 YEARSM W/O. APPUNNI NAIR, CHEMPAKODE HOUSE P.O., MALAYAMMA, CHATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.101 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2010. ORDER This revision is in challenge of order passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Kozhikode in O.P.(Ele.) No.94 of 2004 enhancing compensation for value of improvements and awarding compensation for diminished land value. It is not disputed that 110 KV line was drawn through the property of respondent and petitioner awarded compensation of Rs.82,448/-. Claiming enhanced compensation respondent filed petition before the learned Additional District Judge. Respondent examined PW1 and proved Ext.A1, detailed valuation statement. Learned Additional District Judge accepted particulars of improvements stated in Ext.A1 and relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542) fixed rate of return for the yielding improvements as 5% as against 10% fixed by the petitioner in Ext.A1. It was also found that in Ext.A1, yielding age of coconut trees was fixed as 60 years. But in the light of the decision referred to above it was fixed as 70 years by the learned Additional District Judge. Accordingly the compensation payable to the respondent for value of improvements was found to be Rs.1,25,751.07 (details of assessment based on Parks Table is given in the impugned order) and less Rs.74,356.32 fixed by the petitioner as compensation for value of yielding improvements the balance amount payable to the respondent was found to be Rs.51,395/-. Learned Additional District Judge CRP No.101/2008 2 found in the light of Full Bench decision of this Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. T.T.P.Kayyu (1996 (1) KLT 432) that respondent is entitled to get compensation for diminished land value due to drawal of line. PW1 stated that 60 cents of land is affected by the drawl of line and market value of the property was Rs.25,000/- per cent. It is stated that the said property abuts a Panchayat road and is 2 kms. away from the Regional Engineering College, Kozhikode. Learned Additional District Judge though in the absence of documentary evidence produced by the respondent fixed the land value at Rs.3,000/- per cent and and 20% of the land value was taken as compensation payable for diminished land value. The extent of land affected by drawal of line was found to be 40 cents. Accordingly compensation payable for diminished land value came to Rs.24,000/- and total enhanced compensation payable to respondent came to Rs.75,395/-. Interest at the rate of 6% per annum also was awarded. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that it is exorbitant. It is contended that enhanced compensation awarded for value of improvements is excessive. It is also contended that it is without any basis that compensation was awarded on diminished land value. Respondent did not produce any evidence showing either value of land or extent of land affected. Learned counsel for respondent has supported the order under challenge. 2. So far as additional compensation awarded for value of improvements, it proceeds on the basis of Ext.A1, detailed valuation statement and the only change that the learned Additional Sub Judge made is regarding CRP No.101/2008 3 the rate of return. That was in accordance with the decision in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B.. Basing on the said decision yielding age of coconut trees was fixed as 70 years instead of 60 years fixed by the petitioner. Having considered the finding of the court below and heard counsel on both sides I do not find reason to interfere with the said finding. 3. What remained is whether the compensation for diminished land value was allowable and if so, whether amount awarded is excessive. Due to drawal of 11 KV line construction of building and cultivation of permanent improvements have become impossible. That certainly has affected the land value. Hence, respondent is entitled to get compensation for diminished land value. 4. So far the market value of land fixed by the learned Additional District Judge as against claim of respondent for Rs.25,000/- per cent is concerned, land in question is situated 2 kms. away from Regional Engineering College, Kozhikode and it abuts a Panchayat road. Considering location of property and having regard to the nature of property though, no better evidence was produced by the respondent, I find no reason to interfere with the market value fixed by the learned Additional District Judge. There is no reason to interfere with the basis fixed by the learned Additional District Judge for awarding compensation at the rate of 20% of the market value. 5. Then the question is whether extent of land affected and fixed by the learned Additional District Judge is correct. True, there is no report of Advocate Commissioner. Apart from 14 coconut trees and 58 arecanut trees CRP No.101/2008 4 (both bearing), there were other improvements in the property such as four jackfruit trees, two supportas, one non-bearing coconut tree, 21 non-bearing arecanut trees, 21 teak trees and 52 other soft wood trees. Considering the number of trees both yielding and non-yielding, extent of 40 cents fixed by the learned Additional District Judge cannot be said to be unreasonable calling for interference. Interest awarded also is quite reasonable. I do not find reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Resultantly this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks