IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 944 of 2007 --------------------- ( EA(OP).68/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM ) REVN. PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- SREEDHARAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.CHEERAN, HARIJAN COLONY (NO.20) VAZHAPPALLY WEST VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ............................................................................ C.R.P. No. 944 OF 2007 ............................................................................ Dated this the 11th April, 2008 O R D E R For drawing Kayamkulam-Pallom 220 K.V. electric transmission line, trees were cut from the property of the respondent. Compensation was awarded to the respondent. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, he filed E.A. (O.P.)No.68 of 2003 before the Addl. District Court, Kottayam. The court below awarded additional compensation of Rs. 13,780/-. The principles laid down in Kumba Amma vs. K.S.E.B. [2000 (1) K.L.T. 542 (FB) ] were applied by the court below and a sum of Rs. 9500/- were awarded as additional compensation for the trees cut. As regards compensation on account of diminution of land value, the court below awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- , taking the affected area as 25 cents. The court below fixed the market value of the land at a very low amount of Rs. 2,000/- per cent and 20% of the market value of the land was granted as compensation for diminution of land value. I am of the view that the amount awarded by the court below is very low. Even if the principles in K.S.E.B. vs. Livisha [ (2007 (3) K.L.T. 1 (SC)] were to be applied, the compensation would be much more. Therefore, I am of the view that the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk