IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRP.No. 572 of 2008(B) --------------------------- OP(EA.)105/2000 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ADDL.3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHOOLATHERVU P.O., HARIPAD. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- P.G.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, PULICKALTHAZHE POOVANTHURUTHU, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 572 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of March, 2011. O R D E R Power Grid Corporation is the revision petitioner. According to the revision petitioner the compensation awarded by the Court below is unreasonable and excessive. For the drawal of 11 K.V. Electric transmission line, 68 rubber trees, 24 coconut trees, 4 jack trees, 9 teak trees were cut and removed from the respondent's property. Besides a tower was constructed in a portion of the property measuring about 5 cents. Rs.1,24,615/- was awarded as compensation by the awarding officer. Complaining of the inadequacy of compensation respondents filed petition before the District Court. The revision petitioner opposed the claim contending that reasonable compensation was awarded by the awarding C.R.P. NO. 572 OF 2008 -:2:- officer and that there is no justification for claiming enhanced compensation. 2. Before the Court below on behalf of respondents Exts.A1 to A6 were produced. The claimant was examined as PW1. On behalf of the revision petitioner Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. The Commissioner's report and sketch were marked as Exts.C1 and C1(a). The Court below awarded a further sum of Rs.1,64,755/- as compensation for the trees cut and removed. In addition to that a further sum of Rs.1,24,800/- was awarded as the compensation for the loss or diminution in land value. Thus a total enhanced compensation of Rs.2,89,555/- was awarded by the Court below. 3. Sri.Millu Dandapani, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that no documentary or other evidence was adduced by the respondents to show that actually 53 cents of land was C.R.P. NO. 572 OF 2008 -:3:- lost as contended by the respondents. It was pointed out that even as per the original case the land that was affected was about 20 cents. True that another 5 cents of land was made use of by the petitioner for the construction of a tower. But the Court below has found that the land that was affected would be about 53 cents. But nothing was stated by the Court below as to how the affected area was found to be of 53 cents. Ext.C1, report of the Commissioner, does not show the approximate area which was affected by the drawal of the line. It was stated that the length of the line drawn was 70 meters and its width was 35 feet. But on going through the report it is not seen what was the area affected by the drawal of line. In fact there is no material to hold that the total area affected by the drawal of the line was 53 cents. Though the learned counsel Sri.Millu Dandapani has submitted that the land value fixed by the Court below at Rs.8,000/- per cent is C.R.P. NO. 572 OF 2008 -:4:- also without any basis, considering the land value prevalent at that time the Court below fixed the value at Rs.8,000/- per cent. As there is no other material, it can be found that the land value assessed at that rate is reasonable. Since five cents of land was fully utilized for the construction of the tower, the claimant is entitled to get compensation for 5 cents at the rate of Rs.8,000/- which would come to Rs.40,000/-. 4. For the trees cut and removed an additional sum of Rs.1,64,755/- was awarded by the Court below. It is noticed by the Court below that there were 68 yielding trees. But in fact even asper the petition the number of yielding rubber trees were only 48. The remaining 20 were only rubber plants. But apart from that it was stated that there were 24 yielding coconut trees, 4 jack trees and 9 teak trees also. Considering all these aspects the additional compensation fixed for the trees cut and removed, arrived at by the Court below at C.R.P. NO. 572 OF 2008 -:5:- Rs.1,64,755/- is not liable to be interfered with. 5. As regards the diminution in land value, percentage of diminution granted by the Court below at 20% and the centage value adopted at Rs.8,000/- also can be accepted. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that though in the petition it was stated that the land affected by the drawal of the line was 20 cents what was meant by the respondent was the actual area lying underneath the 11 K.V. Line. The learned counsel submits that the land on either side of the 11 K.V. line should also be taken into account since no structures can be constructed there. Besides, no rubber trees, coconut trees and other tall trees can be grown in that area. Though the total area of land taken for diminution of land value by the Court below is 53 cents it does not appear to be correct. I find that the approximate area of land affected can be taken as 40 cents. So the compensation for diminution of land C.R.P. NO. 572 OF 2008 -:6:- value would come to Rs.64,000/- as against Rs.84,800/-. In all other respects the revision petition must fail. 6. In the result this revision petition is allowed in part refixing the enhanced compensation at Rs.2,68,755/-. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. Sd/-N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,JUDGE. ul/- [ True copy ] P.A. to Judge.