IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 CRP.No. 415 of 2008() --------------------- OP(ELE)No.10/2004 of ADDL.D.C., ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------- K.GOPALAN NAIR, (SOMAN), S/O.KESAVA KURUP, VELIKKAKATHU VEEDU, PUNNAPRA P.O, ALAPPUZHA. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.415 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this 26th day of May, 2010 ORDER The State Electricity Board has come up in revision challenging the order of enhancement passed by learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P.(Ele.).No.10 of 2004. Facts which are not disputed are that through property of respondent, petitioner has drawn Punnapra-Edathua 110KV line cutting various valuable improvements from that property. Total compensation awarded by petitioner is Rs.5835/- without awarding compensation for diminution in land value. Ext.A2 is the detailed valuation statement (DVS) prepared by the petitioner. There, 10% return was taken for assessment of compensation by the Valuation Officer. That is not in conformity with the decision in Kumba Amma Vs. KSEB (2000(1) KLT 542) where 5% return was taken. Accepting that, and based on Ext.A2, DVS learned Additional District Judge found that amount payable towards value of improvements is Rs.8481/- instead of 5403/- awarded by the Valuation Officer and that additional compensation payable to the petitioner is Rs.3078/-. Diminution in land value was not taken into account by the valuation Officer. It has come in evidence from Exts.C1 and C2, C.R.P.No.415 of 2008 : 2 : report and sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner that the tower constructed by petitioner in the property of respondent occupied 0.625 cents which the learned Additional District Judge has taken as 1 cent for the purpose of calculation of compensation. It is seen from Ext.C1 that the property is situated ½ k.m south of Kalathattu junction on the National Highway. In Ext.A1, copy of sale deed of 1998 produced by the respondent value of the property referred to therein is Rs.20,187/- per cent. The year of cutting in this case is 1999. Though, there was no evidence to show that the petition schedule property and Ext.A1 property are similarly placed, considering the site of the schedule property, ½ km away from the National Highway and other relevant circumstances learned Additional District Judge has fixed land value at Rs.10,000/- per cent. For the purpose of assessment of compensation 30% of the land value was taken into account. Though advocate commissioner reported that 18 cents is effected by drawal of the line considering nature and extent of improvements stated in Ext.A2 learned Additional District Judge assessed the extent of land affected as 10 cents which includes the 1 cent occupied by the tower and accordingly, for the said 1 cent Rs.10,000/- was awarded as compensation taking the said 1 cent property as having been rendered absolutely useless. For the remaining 9 cents taking the land value as Rs.10,000/- and the diminution in land value as 30%, Rs.27,000/- was fixed as C.R.P.No.415 of 2008 : 3 : compensation. Total amount payable for diminished land value is Rs.37000/- including Rs.3078/- awarded as additional compensation for value of improvements respondent was found entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.40,078/-. 2. It is contended by learned counsel that the assessment made by learned Additional District Judge is erroneous. According to the learned counsel, 5% could not have been taken as return for assessment of value of improvements. It is also the contention of learned counsel that there is no data before the court to fix land value as Rs.10,000/- per cent. 3. So far as return factor is concerned that is based on the decision which I have referred above. In other respects, learned Additional District Judge has accepted Ext.A2, DVS. There is no reason for the petitioner to complain in that regard. So far as land value is concerned, Ext.A1as such has not been taken into account. Ext.A1 gives some indication of the land value at or near the place of schedule property situated ½ km away from the National Highway. Considering the importance of the locality and also the fact that Ext.A1 assignment was in the year 1998 while the year of cutting of this case is 1999. I do not find anything illegal in learned Additional District Judge fixing land value as Rs.10,000/-. Though assessment of compensation for diminished land value shall not be arbitrary, it involves some sort of guess work also based on available datas. The additional compensation fixed by the learned C.R.P.No.415 of 2008 : 4 : Additional District Judge is reasonable and required no interference. Resultantly the revision petition fails and it is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-