IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2010 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 CRP.No. 621 of 2008() --------------------- OPEA.554/2002 of ADDL DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, NAGIARKULANGARA.P.O, HARIPAD. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------- RAGHU, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, MANAYIL HOUSE, MAHADEVIKAD.P.O, KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.A.SHAFEEK FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.621 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this 17th day of December, 2010 ORDER This revision is in challenge of order dated 16-06-2007 in O.P.(Ele).No.554 of 2002 of the court of learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha. For drawal of 220kv line yielding improvements were removed from the property of respondent. Not satisfied with compensation awarded by petitioner, respondent filed petition in the court below. Learned Additional District Judge awarded `.28,057/- as additional compensation for value of improvements and `.7,650/- as compensation for diminished land value. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that amount awarded is excessive. Learned counsel for respondent contended that award of compensation does not call for interference. 2. It is not disputed that the Advocate Commissioner had inspected the property and submitted Ext.C1, report. So far as additional compensation payable for tree cutting is concerned, learned Additional District Judge has taken the annuity factor at 5% placing reliance on the decision in Kumba Amma Vs. KSEB (2000(1) KLT 542) and accordingly awarded additional C.R.P.No. 621 of 2008 : 2 : compensation which having regard to the facts and circumstances does not call for interference. 3. So far as compensation payable for diminished land value is concerned, extent of land affected by drawal of the line is taken by the learned Additional District Judge as only 5 cents as against claim of respondent that it is 12cents. Ext.A3 is the copy of award passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Alappuzha in a land acquisition matter where land value was fixed at `.5,000/- per cent. Learned Additional District Judge has fixed the land value at `.3,000/- per cent which cannot be said to be excessive. For deciding compensation for diminished land value, 30% of land value was taken and for 3.5 cents, compensation was fixed at `.3,150/-. The remaining 1.5 cents was used for installation of electric tower for which 100% of land value was awarded as compensation (`.4500/-). Thus total amount awarded for diminished land value is `.7650/-. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find reason to interfere with that part of the award. This petition fails. It is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-