IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 CRP.No. 798 of 2008() --------------------- OPELE.212/2000 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/1st RESPONDENT: --------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER: --------------------------- P.C.MURALI, PALLIPURATHU HOUSE CHATHANKERY PO., PERINGARA VILLAGE THIRUVALLA TALUK. ADV. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.798 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this 30th day of September, 2010 ORDER Heard both sides. 2. This revision is in challenge of order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(Ele). No.212 of 2000 awarding Rs.70,888/- as additional compensation for tree cutting and for diminished land value. It is not disputed that 220kv line was drawn through property of petitioner and in connection with that, 4 yielding coconut trees and two arecanut trees were cut and removed accepting the detailed valuation statement produced by the petitioner. Learned Additional District Judge rejected claims made by respondent as to the number of trees cut, yield and future income and held that the trees involved are 4 yielding coconut trees and 2 arecanut trees. Other datas contained in the detailed valuation statement were also accepted but instead of 10% annuity adopted by the petitioner, learned Additional District Judge has accepted 5% annuity in the light of the decision in Kumba Amma Vs. KSEB (2000(1) KLT 542). That brought the additional compensation payable for value of improvements as Rs.28,948.06/-. C.R.P.No798 of 2008 : 2 : 3. The next count on which compensation was awarded is for diminished land value. Reliance is placed on Exts.C1 to C3 report, mahazar and sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner which were not under challenge. Learned Additional District Judge has fixed extent of land affected by the drawal of line as 13.980 cents. It cannot be disputed that on account of drawal of high extension line land value is diminished since respondent is not able to cultivate permanent crops or construct buildings in that area. Hence respondent is entitled to get compensation for diminished land value. 4. So far as value of land is concerned, respondent produced Ext.A1 to show that the land value is around Rs.25,000/- per cent. But evidence revealed that Ext.A1 property is situated about 500 meters away from petition schedule property. Learned Additional District Judge, from the evidence found that Ext.A1 property has more proximity to public institutions and hence value stated in Ext.A1 cannot as such be accepted. Taken into account the fact that Ext.A1,assignment deed was executed in favour of co-operative society and the circumstances proved in the case, learned Additional District Judge has fixed value for petition schedule property as C.R.P.No798 of 2008 : 3 : Rs.15,000/- per cent which cannot be stated to be excessive in the light of the evidence. For the purpose of fixing compensation for diminished land value, 20% of land value is taken. Compensation payable for diminished land value come to Rs.41940/-. Thus additional compensation payable came to Rs.70,888.06/- which is rounded as Rs.70,888/-. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that amount awarded is excessive. According to learned counsel for respondent no interference is required. 5. I stated that so far as additional compensation for value of improvements is concenred, only change learned Additional District Judge has made is acceptance of 5% annuity in the light of the decision referred to supra and that required no interference. So far as diminished land value is concerned, it is based on materials on record that compensation was fixed. Having heard counsel on both sides and gone through the order under challenge I do not find reason to interfere in revision. Resultantly this petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-