IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 836 of 2008() ---------------- O.P. (EA) NO. 63/2005 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA ...................... PETITIONER / PETITIONER : ------------------------------------------ PADMAKUMAR, S/O.PADMANABHAN, 'KARUNYA', AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA,ALAPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT : ---------------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP; BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2011, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 427 OF 2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.836 of 2008 and C.R.P.No.427 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 13th day of December, 2011 ORDER These civil revisions arise from the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P(E.A).No.63 of 2005 awarding enhanced compensation to the land owner consequent to the drawal of 110Kv line. Land owner and the K.S.E.B are aggrieved and have filed these civil revisions. Parties are referred as petitioner and respondent as in C.R.P.No.836 of 2008. 2. It is not disputed that 110Kv line was drawn through property of petitioner and for the said purpose improvements were cut and removed in the year, 1999. Documents produced by the respondent would show that 53 yielding and non yielding trees were cut and removed. It includs 16 yielding coconut trees, 4 coconut trees which were about to give yield, 10 yielding arecanut trees and two yielding mango trees. Compensation awarded is `.28,553/-. Petitioner claimed additional compensation for value of improvements and compensation for diminished land value on account of drawal of line. Learned Additional District Judge on evidence found that additional C.R.P.No.836 of 2008 and C.R.P.No.427 of 2009 -: 2 :- compensation of `.15,654/- is payable for value of improvements. For diminished land value `.60,000/- was awarded. That order is under challenge as aforesaid by both sides. 3. Petitioner is not challenging the additional compensation awarded for value of improvements. But, respondent does that. The claim of petitioner is that compensation awarded for diminished land value is low. Learned counsel contends that as against the report of Advocate Commissioner which revealed that 15.81 cents was affected, the court below has taken the extent of land affected as only 10 cents. It is also contended that there was no reason for not taking into account Ext.A1, document of the year 2006. Learned counsel contends that Ext.A1, property is situated about 50ms away from property of petitioner and hence value covered by Ext.A1 ought to have been taken into account. 4. Learned counsel for respondent contended that additional compensation awarded for value of improvements is excessive. It is contended that no compensation could have been allowed for diminished land value since compensation has already been awarded for value of improvements. According to the learned counsel, awarding compensation for diminished land value also amounted to double compensation. C.R.P.No.836 of 2008 and C.R.P.No.427 of 2009 -: 3 :- 5. The property involved does not appear to be agricultural land. It is 31cents and a residential building. Though, a few yielding improvements are found in the property, in the normal course it must be taken as residential plot where a building is constructed. Hence, considering the paramount intention of petitioner and the main purpose for which the property is put to use it must be taken as a residential plot. Therefore, the principle that may be applicable in the case of agricultural land cannot be applied to the property of petitioner. Hence I am of the view that petitioner is entitled to get compensation for diminished land value also. 6. So far as the contention of respondent as to enhanced compensation awarded for value of improvements is concerned, it is seen that accepting the documents produced by the respondent as to improvements, yield etc, learned Additional District Judge adopted 5% as annuity and found that additional compensation of `.15,654 is payable. That does not appear to me unreasonable. 7. As regards compensation for diminished land value, it is seen that learned Additional District Judge has not accepted Ext.A1, document as such. For, there was no reliable evidence to show comparable nature of property involved and property covered by Ext.A1. Learned counsel for petitioner has invited my C.R.P.No.836 of 2008 and C.R.P.No.427 of 2009 -: 4 :- attention to Annexure-C, order of this Court in C.R.P.No.23 of 2011 (produced in C.R.P.No.836 of 2008). There also Ext.A1, document was not accepted though, reference was made to that document also. Merely for the reason that in that case Ext.A1, document was also referred to, it does not mean that in this case it has to be accepted. In the absence of any reliable evidence regarding comparable nature of property involved and Ext.A1, property and taking into account the fact that tree cutting was in the year 1999 while Ext.A1, document is of the year 2006, I am not inclined to place reliance on Ext.A1. There is no reason to interfere with land value fixed by the learned Additional District Judge. 8. So far as the extent of land is concerned, I am inclined to think that some modification is required. The Advocate Commissioner has stated in his report that land affected, though the line is drawn along the side of property is at a length of 80 metres and width of 8 metres which come to around 15 cents. Hence land affected can be taken as 15 cents against 10 cents fixed by the learned Additional District Judge. Additional compensation payable by way of diminished land value for the additional 5 cents comes to Rs.30,000/-. To that extent, the order under challenge is required to be modified. C.R.P.No.836 of 2008 and C.R.P.No.427 of 2009 -: 5 :- Resultantly these civil revisions are disposed of as follows: (I) C.R.P.No.836 of 2008 is allowed to the extent that in addition to the amount awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, petitioner is allowed to recover a further sum of `.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) which shall carry 6% of interest from the date awarded by the learned Additional District Judge. (II) C.R.P.No.427 of 2009 is dismissed. (III) Both parties are directed to bear the respective costs in the civil revisions. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-