IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 5TH ASWINA 1933 CRP.No. 458 of 2008() --------------------- [O.P(ELE.).NO.108/2003 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, S.C, K.S.E.B, SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, S.C, K.S.E.B. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- OMANA, W/O. RAMARAJAN, KAVITHA VIHAR, PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA-4. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.458 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this 27th day of September, 2011 ORDER The State Electricity Board has come up in revision challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P(Ele).No.108 of 2003. 2. For drawal of the 110kv line, certain improvements were cut and removed from the property of respondent. Respondent claimed additional compensation and tried to prove his case by Exts.A1, A2 and C1. Based on the same, learned Additional District Judge awarded additional compensation of `.22,005/- with 6% interest. That order is under challenge. 3. Learned counsel has contended that additional compensation awarded is without any basis. It is also contended that for fixation of land value, there is absolutely no material on record. 4. Exts.A2 is the copy of detailed valuation statement prepared by the petitioner which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge for fixing the yield and price of produces. The only change the learned Additional District Judge has made is in the matter of annuity – it was taken as 5% in the C.R.P.No.458 of 2008 -: 2 :- light of the decision in Kumba Amma Vs. KSEB (2000(1) KLT 542) instead of 10% adopted by the petitioner. Thus, it is found that a further sum of `.7004.86/- rounded to `.7005/- is due to the respondent as additional compensation for value of improvements. 5. The next claim was for compensation for diminished land value. Respondent produced Exts.A1, copy of title deed relating to property in the adjascent village to prove the land value but that was not accepted by the learned Additional District Judge. Exts.C1, report of the Advocate Commissioner states that the property of respondent is situated about a furlong away from the National Highway. Considering the local importance of the property as revealed from Exts.C1, learned Additional District Judge was of the view that land value could be taken as `.10,000/- per cent. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned Additional District Judge that assessment cannot said to be without basis or unreasonable. 6. Though, in Exts.C1, report the Advocate Commissioner stated that 10cents of land is affected by the drawal of the line, having regard to the various improvements cut and removed learned Additional District Judge was not inclined to C.R.P.No.458 of 2008 -: 3 :- accept that and fixed the extent of land actually affected by drawal of the line as 5(five) cents. For fixation of compensation 30% of the land value was taken as basis and accordingly `.15,000/- was awarded. Thus the additional compensation payable came to `.22,005/-. 7. Though learned counsel has vehemently contended that the award is without basis, having regard to the circumstances stated above and considering the extent of land affected, I am not inclined to think that additional compensation is excessive, calling for interference in revision at the instance of petitioner. This civil revision is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-