IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 CRP.No. 888 of 2006() --------------------- OP. ELE.132/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- ANTONY @ THANKACHAN, S/O.XAVIER, KADAVIPPARAMBIL, KUMBALANGHI. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/08/2011, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 931 OF 2006 & CRP NO. 948 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: vk THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- CRP Nos.888, 931 & 948 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions arise from the common order passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc-III), Ernakulam in OP (Ele.) No.132 of 2002, 137 of 2002 and 189 of 2002 awarding enhanced compensation for tree cutting and diminished land value on account of drawl of 110KV high tension line. 2. In OP (Ele) No.132 of 2002, one yielding Muringa tree apart from a few other trees are involved. Petitioner awarded Rs.850/- as compensation. In OP (Ele) No.137 of 2007, 13 trees are involved. Petitioner awarded Rs.6,518. In OP (Ele) No.189 of 2002 there are 19 trees for which petitioner awarded Rs.26,206/-. Contending that no amount was awarded as compensation for diminished land value on account of drawl of line and that compensation awarded for tree cutting is not sufficient, respondents claimed enhanced compensation in the respective petitions. Petitioner contended that the amount awarded is reasonable, claim is excessive and that, no amount is CRP Nos.888, 931 & 948 of 2006 -2- payable for diminished land value. Learned Additional District Judge on evidence found that respondents are entitled to get enhanced compensation for tree cutting and compensation for diminished land value. The said common order is under challenge. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the main challenge is to compensation awarded for diminished land value. it is contended that without any basis learned Additional Judge fixed land value @15,000/- per cent. It is also contended that land value at the time of cutting trees (in the year 2000) was not taken into account. Learned counsel for respondents contends that it is based on Ext.A1, copy of award in OP No.13 of 1999 that learned Additional District Judge has fixed land value which requires no reconsideration. 4. So far as additional compensation for tree cutting is concerned, there is no dispute regarding the detailed valuation statement (for short “the DVS”) produced by petitioner. Learned Additional District Judge, in the light of the decision in 2000 (1) KLT 542 (Kumba Amma V. K.S.E.B) has fixed the annuity factor @5% and awarded enhanced compensation for tree cutting. That requires no interference. CRP Nos.888, 931 & 948 of 2006 -3- 5. So far as compensation for diminished land value is concerned, 110KV line was drawn along property of respondents. On account of that, respondents are not able to cultivate permanent crops and construct building in the portion of land through which the line is drawn. Certainly that and the the presence of high tension line will cause diminution in land value. 6. So far as compensation awarded for diminished land value is concerned, the land value is fixed as Rs.15,000/- per cent. In Ext.A1, the land value fixed is Rs.26,500/- per cent. It is true that no commission was taken out to show similarity of property involved or its local importance vis-a-vis the property involved in OP No.13 of 1999. But, Ext.A1 would give some idea regarding the land value. Having regard to the price of land in the State, the sum of Rs.15,000/- per cent fixed as land value cannot be said to be exorbitant calling for interference in revision. 7. Learned Additional District Judge has taken 20% of the land value as basis of awarding compensation which requires no interference. In OP (Ele.) No.132 of 2002 there are altogether 9 trees as revealed from Ext.R1 the DVS. Learned CRP Nos.888, 931 & 948 of 2006 -4- Additional District Judge has taken only 2 cents as the land affected and Rs.6,000/- was awarded as compensation for diminished land value. In OP (Ele.) No.132/2002, Ext.R5, DVS shows that 13 trees are cut and removed. The extent of land assessed as affected by learned Additional District Judge is only 3 cents. I am not inclined to think it calls for reconsideration. Compensation payable for diminished land value comes to Rs.9,000/-. In OP (Ele.) No.189/2002, Ext.R6, DVS shows that 19 trees are cut and removed and based on that, extent of land affected is taken as 5 cents and consequently, compensation payable is fixed as Rs.15,000/-. That also required no reconsideration. Having heard arguments on both sides and perused the common order I am not persuaded to think that any interference in the common order is required. The Civil Revisions fail and are dismissed with costs to the Respondents. Sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE AMG True copy P.A to Judge