IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 CRP.No. 390 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2006 IN OP(EA)NO.646/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA. ....................... REVN. PETITIONER/ PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------- KARTHIYAYANI, AGED 62 YEARS, MANALA THEKKETHIL HOUSE, POTHAPPALLY, KUMARAPURAM P.O., KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT/ COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, LOCAL OFFICE AT NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPPAD. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dmb K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ C.R.P.No.390 OF 2007 ------------------------------ Dated this the 25 th day of January, 2011 ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5 th April, 2006 in O.P(EA)No.646 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha. 2. For drawing a 220 K.V. electric line, the respondent, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. cut and removed 6 yielding coconut trees and 5 yielding arecanut trees from the property belonging to the petitioner. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the respondent, the petitioner approached the Additional District Court Under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act. The petitioner contended that the compensation awarded on account of the trees cut and also on account of diminution of land value is very low. C.R.P.No.390 OF 2007 2 3. Before the court below, PW1, the son-in-law of the petitioner, was examined. No other independent evidence was adduced. The court below came to the conclusion that the compensation on account of the value of the trees cut was granted adopting 10% as the annual return. Following the decision of Kumbha Amma v. K.S.E.B (2000(1) KLT 542), the court below enhanced the compensation for the trees cut, taking the annual return at 5%. In fact, in view of the Supreme Court judgments, the award of compensation taking annual return at 5% would be on the higher side. However, the court below held that the compensation for the yielding trees would be Rs.59,051/- and after taking the compensation already awarded, an enhanced compensation of Rs.22,946/- was granted in favour of the petitioner with 9% interest from the date of cutting of trees. 4. As regards compensation for diminution of land value, the court below held that there is no C.R.P.No.390 OF 2007 3 evidence in the case to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to any compensation on account of diminution of land value. It was noticed by the court below that the petitioner did not take out a commission to ascertain the nature of the property, the location of the electricity line and the possible injury that would be caused to the property of the petitioner by the drawal of the line. The claim for compensation on account of the diminution of land value was not granted by the court below. 5. I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the court below for the trees cut is really on the higher side, going by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. As regards the compensation for diminution of land value, the court below was right in holding that there was no evidence to grant the same. C.R.P.No.390 OF 2007 4 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has not challenged the order passed by the court below. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no ground for interference in revision. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms