IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 CRP.No. 414 of 2007() ------------------------------ OPEA.644/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT , ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------- SUMATHY, AGED YEARS, VAPPAAMBIL PADEETTATHIL, THAMALLACKAL P.O., KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALY TALUK. BY ADV. MR.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, LOCAL OFFICE AT NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPPAD. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- C.R.P.NO.414 OF 2007 ---------------------------- DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2009 O R D E R Revision Petition is the claimant. The Power Grid Corporation awarded an amount of Rs.36,925/- towards compensation for the trees cut and removed. The court below, after considering the matter, granted an additional compensation of Rs.16,766/- with 9% interest towards the trees cut and removed. On going through paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order, it is seen that the court below had examined the evidence on record and rightly concluded that the compensation paid to the claimant is inadequate and therefore held that the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.16,766/-. Though the revision petitioner/claimant contended before this Court that the amount awarded is inadequate, I find no reason to interfere with the order, since the compensation awarded by the court below is based on the materials on record. -2- CRP.No.414/2007 2. The second question raised by the learned counsel is regarding the claim under the head “diminution in land value.” Taking into account the fact that 15 coconut trees were cut and removed and 11KV line was passing through the petitioner's property, at least 5 cents of land is likely to be affected. The extent affected by drawing of the line cannot be worked out, in the absence of any datas. The revision petitioner did not take out a commission to ascertain the correct extent of land affected by the drawal of line. The claimant produced Ext.A1 sale deed, which according to her, is a similarly situated property. The market value in Ext.A1 sale deed is Rs.30,000/- per cent. Admittedly, Ext.A1 sale deed was executed two years after the cutting of trees. From the mere production of Ext.A1 it is difficult to conclude that the property in Ext.A1 and the property of the claimant are similarly situated. On a rough estimate compensation towards diminution in land value issQ fixed at Rs.10,000/- with 6% interest. The award passed by the court -3- CRP.No.414/2007 below is modified as stated above. C.R.P. is allowed partly. Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.