IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2011 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1933 CRP.No. 223 of 2006() --------------------- E.OP.15/1996 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------ 1. G.KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.GOVINDA PILLAI, SANTHI SADANAM, ERUVA WEST, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. 2. K.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.GOVINDA PILLAI, DO. DO. 3. K.G.NAOUMI KUMARI, D/O.GOVINDA PILLAI, DO. DO. ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.A.R.DILEEP FOR R1 TO R3 SMT.KAVITHA GANGADHARAN FOR R1 TO R3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2011, THE COURT ON 21/11/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS J., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No.223 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21th day of November, 2011 ORDER This C.R.P. is filed by the respondent/ K.S.E.B. in O.P.(Ele.) No.15 of 1996 on the file of Addl. District Judge, Mavelikkara. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the petitioners 1 to 3 in that O.P. which was filed by them under Section 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Sec.51 of the Indian Electricity Act. 2. The averments in the O.P.(Ele.) No.15 of 1996 are briefly as follows. The petitioners are the owners of the property through which the Edappon-Kayamkulam 110 KV electric line was drawn. For the purpose of drawing the line about 14 yielding coconut trees 10 non-yielding coconut trees and 14 arecanut trees and other trees C.R.P. No. 223 of 2006 :2: were cut and removed and an amount of Rs.21,440/- was awarded as compensation. According to the petitioners the award is not proper and it is low. On account of the drawing of line about 90 cents of land has become useless. Being dissatisfied with the award the petitioners filed the O.P. claiming a total amount of Rs.34,91,725/- as compensation with 15% interest. 3. Respondent filed counter stating as follows. The amount claiming under various heads and the yield value of commodities etc., are high, excessive and without any basis. Further there is no diminution in land value or loss of utility caused on account of the drawing of the line and the petitioners are not entitled to get any compensation under that head. The Board has assessed reasonable and fair compensation and the petitioners are not entitled to get any compensation under any of the heads claimed in the petition. C.R.P. No. 223 of 2006 :3: 4. In the Addl. District Court, O.P. (Ele.) No.15 of 1996 tried jointly with O.P.(Ele.) NO.67 of 1997 and evidence was recorded in O.P. No.15 of 1996. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to 3, C1, B1 and 2 were marked. The Addl. District Judge on considering the evidence on record allowed O.P. No.15 of 1996 in part and an award was passed for Rs.48,325/- in favour of the petitioners payable by the respondent together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition, i.e., 12.2.1996 till payment on Rs.42,755/- together with proportionate costs of the proceedings. Against that award the respondent K.S.E.B. filed this C.R.P. 5. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Court below ought to have found that Rs.21,440/- paid by the K.S.E.B. was a reasonable compensation. Learned C.R.P. No. 223 of 2006 :4: counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the enhanced compensation of Rs.48,325/- awarded by the Court below is exorbitant. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Court below went wrong in arbitrarily fixing the land value as Rs.6,000/- per cent without any reliable evidence. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Court below. 7. There is no dispute that for the purpose of drawing 110 KV Edappon-Kayamkulam electric line some yielding trees and some non yielding trees were cut and removed from the property of the petitioners and Rs.21,440/- was awarded as compensation. As regards the number of trees cut there is no dispute between the parties. As the petitioners failed to prove the present age,future age, yield, value of commodity taken by K.S.E.B. for assessing compensation are not proper, the Addl. District Judge accepted the datas given by the K.S.E.B. in C.R.P. No. 223 of 2006 :5: Exts.B1 and B2 for the purpose of assessing the compensation for trees. The Addl. District Judge in paragraph 12 of the award mentioned about the principles adopted by him for assessing the compensation as follows: “The Board has taken 10% annuity for the purpose of capitalising the annual income for assessed compensation for the yielding trees. But in the decision reported in 2000(1) KLT 542 (Kumbamma v. K.S.E.B.) the Full Bench of hon'ble High Court has held that considering the inflation and drop in the money value the annuity will have to be taken as 5% instead of 10%. So the annuity will have to be taken as 5% for capitalising the annual income for assessing compensation for the yielding trees cut instead of 10% taken by the Board and the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the yielding trees on this basis.” C.R.P. No. 223 of 2006 :6: 8. The Addl. District Judge on applying the above principles assessed the compensation payable for the trees as Rs.35,395/- and deducting Rs.21,440/- being the amount already paid, the balance amount is calculated as Rs.13,955/-. The learned Addl. District Judge assessed the compensation of the trees on the basis of the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court. Considering the fact that 14 yielding coconut trees and 10 non yielding coconut trees and 41 arecanut trees and other trees were cut and removed, I am of the view that the compensation assessed by the learned Additional District Judge under that head is not excessive. 9. In the Commission report, the Commissioner has stated that there is a tower installed in the property of the petitioners which covers the extent of about one cent and this area cannot be used for any other purpose. The Addl. District Judge awarded Rs.1,800/- as compensation for the area lost where the C.R.P. No. 223 of 2006 :7: tower is established. The learned Addl. District Judge on considering the number of trees cut and location of the electric line, 45 cents was taken as affected area on account of the drawing of electric line including the area under the line and the clearance area taken for the purpose of the drawing of the electric line. Learned Addl. District Judge assessed the diminution in land value as Rs.27,000/- taking Rs.6,000/- per cent as land value and 10% as diminution in land value. Rs.5,570/- was awarded as compensation for the delayed payment of Rs.21,440/- as the trees were cut on 20.4.1990 and the amount was paid only on 10.4.1994 by calculating 6% interest. Thus in total the Addl. District Judge awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.48,325/-. Since the Addl. District Judge has awarded only a reasonable amount as enhanced compensation, I find no reason to interfere with that award. C.R.P. No. 223 of 2006 :8: Accordingly this C.R.P. is dismissed as it is without any merits. There is no order as to costs. M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/