IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 CRP.NO. 654 OF 2008() ----------------------------------- OPELE.73/1999 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------ POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NAGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): PETITONER ---------------------------------------------- BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, KALATHIKUTTIYIL, CHOORAKOD.P.O, KRATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. ADV. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON FOR R1 SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.654 of 2008 ==================================== Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010 O R D E R This revision petition arises at the instance of the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., for whose purpose 220 KV line was drawn along the property of respondent. Learned Additional District Judge after considering various claim made by the respondent awarded a sum of Rs.57,550/- with 6% interest as additional compensation apart from the sum of Rs.76,242/- awarded by the petitioner. According to the petitioner amount awarded by the learned District Judge is excessive. 2. I have counsel on both sides. 3. So far as the enhancement given for value of improvements is concerned it is seen that the learned Additional District Judge after referring to the material on record including the documents produced by petitioner and basing on Parks table has fixed additional compensation at Rs.31,318.46. Though that enhancement is challenged by the petitioner in the revision petition on going through the order under challenge I do not find reason to interfere with that enhancement. 4. Then what remained is the compensation awarded for diminution in land value. Based on Exts.C1 to C3, report, plan C.R.P. No.654 of 2008 -: 2 :- and mahazar prepared by the Advocate Commissioner and the evidence of respondent as P.W.2 court below has fixed the extent of land injuriously affected by the drawal of line as 26.213 which I do not find no reason to interfere. so far as land value is concerned respondent placed reliance on Ext.B3, copy of assignment deed as per which 15 cents of land was sold for Rs.3,00,000/- i.e., at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent. Learned Additional District Judge was not inclined to accept Ext.B2 as such but fixed Rs.5,000/- per cent as the land value. That is not at all exorbitant requiring interference by revisional court. Learned Additional District Judge adopted 20% of the land value as the basis for awarding compensation for diminution in land value and accordingly Rs.26,231/- was awarded as compensation for diminution in land value which was not awarded to the petitioner. Drawal of the line resulted in diminution in land value in the sense that respondent is prevented from putting up structures and cultivating permanent crops in the affected area. Considering all these aspects I do not find reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Civil Revision Petition fails and it is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv