IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 426 of 2009() --------------------- OP(EA)NO.64/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): IST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ULAHANNAN, AGED 79 YEARS, S/O.DANIEL, MALIKKUDIYIL, MACLAMPARA KARA, THALAPPALAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, M.D.JOSEPH, S/O.ULAHANNAN, AGED 61, MALIKKUDIYIL, MACLAMPARA, THALAPPALAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION), FOR K.S.E.BOARD, KOTTAYAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P. BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= C.R.P. No. 426 of 2009 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 O R D E R Kerala State Electricity Board challenges the order dated 9-1- 2008 in O.P.(E.A.) No. 64 of 2003, which the court below granted enhancement of compensation at Rs.71,759/- with 9% interest from the date of petition i.e., 31-7-2003 till realization. 2. The petitioner before the court below owns of land in Sy.No. 435/IA of Thalappalam Village. There is no dispute regarding the fact that a portion of the property have been utilized by the revision petitioner for drawing 110 KV line and in that process several trees which were standing in the properties were cut and removed and the petitioner was awarded compensation of Rs.23,027/- Complaining inadequacy of the compensation granted, the petitioner approached the District Court, Kottayam. It was pointed out by the petitioner that the valuation of the trees cut and removed was not proper and no amount for diminution in land value was granted. 3. The Board resisted the petition and contended that adequate compensation has been granted. The petitioner adduced evidence before the court below. He examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exts.A1 to A6. The Board too adduced evidence, examined DW1 and Crp 426/2009 2 produced Exts.B1 to B9. The court below marked Ext. C1 commission report and Ext.C1(a) sketch. The court below on evaluation of the evidence found that the amount granted by the Board for trees cut and removed was inadequate and enhanced the same by Rs.71, 759/-. 4. On going through the order it is seen that convincing and cogent reasons are stated by the court below. No error is seen in the computation of the amount so arrived at by the court below. The court below rightly noticed that the Board had not granted any amount towards diminution of land value. It is not disputed that a tower has been erected in the property. The court blow took note of the decision reported in K.S.E.B. V. Livisha (2007(3) KLT 1 (SC) and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to a reasonable amount towards diminution in land value. The commission report was relied on. It is reported that as a result of drawing line through the property of the petitioner 8 cents of property owned by the petitioner has been adversely affected. A tower has been erected and taking into consideration that aspect, the court below has granted an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the diminution of land value and granted Rs.20,000/- for erection of tower. Enhanced compensation was awarded to the petitioner at Rs. 71,759/- with 9% interest from the date of petition. The court below has noticed that the line has been drawn almost through the middle of the property. Crp 426/2009 3 5. Taking into consideration all these aspects, it could not be stated that the amount granted towards diminution in land value and yielding of trees is excessive. No error or impropriety could be pointed out by the revision petitioner in the order of the court below. The revision petition is without any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mn.