IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 CRP.No. 528 of 2010() --------------------- OP.51/1998 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA-630513. REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS: -------------------------- DILEEP KUMAR, AGED 59, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGRICULTURIST, THEKKUMKATTIN VEEDU, ERAHUVADAKKETHARAYIL PATTAZHI VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE, CHELIKUZHI.P.O., PATTAZHI, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE FOR R THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.528 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 26th day of November, 2010 ORDER This revision is in challenge of order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kollam in O.P(Ele).No.51 of 1998 awarding additional compensation of `.1,75,451/- on various counts. It is not disputed that for the purpose of drawal of 220Kv line yielding improvements were cut and removed from the property of respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the compensation awarded by petitioner for value of improvements and in not awarding compensation for diminished land value, respondent approached the learned Additional District Judge with a claim for additional compensation claiming a sum of more than Rupees Sixty Lakhs. Before the learned Additional District Judge PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.X1 and C2 were marked. Learned Additional District Judge found that for the rubber trees cut and removed compensation payable is `.2,18,400/-. For the five coconut trees cut and removed compensation payable was found to be `.9600/- and for other trees a sum of `.8,000/- was awarded. Learned Additional District Judge found that respondent is entitled to get compensation for diminished land value for the C.R.P.No.528 of 2010 : 2 : land affected - 75 cents and awarded `.75,000/- as compensation on that count. That award is under challenge at the instance of petitioner. Learned counsel contended that it is without any basis that additional compensation was awarded. According to the learned counsel, respondent is entitled to get no further amount for value of improvements and at any rate, the amount awarded is excessive. It is also contended that respondent continues to be the owner in possession of the property notwithstanding drawal of the line and is not entitled to get compensation for diminished land value as petitioner could cultivate seasonal crops and gain income from it. Learned counsel for respondent while supporting enhanced compensation for value of improvements contended that compensation awarded for diminished land value is low and that relevant documents produced by the respondent for proving land value in the locality was not taken into account by the learned Sub Judge. 2. It is seen from the award that assessment of additional compensation for value of improvements is not on the accepted norms. Instead, learned Additional District Judge has made certain deductions for maintenance and fixed additional compensation. On going through the order under challenge I am C.R.P.No.528 of 2010 : 3 : not satisfied that additional compensation if any payable for value of improvements has been fixed in the proper manner. 3. So far as compensation for diminished land value is concerned, though no separate revision is filed by the respondent, having regard to the manner in which compensation has been awarded and that part of the award is also challenged by petitioner, I am inclined to interfere with that part of the award also. It is seen that 75cents has been fixed as extent of land affected which according to learned counsel for respondent is disregarding the report of the Advocate Commissioner that the extent of land affected is 80cents. It is also contended by learned counsel for respondent that though relevant documents were produced to show land value at the site, that has not been taken into account and `.1,000/- per cent was fixed as compensation. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that award passed for diminished land value cannot be sustained. 4. I am not going into the question whether respondent is entitled to get compensation for diminished land value in the way he has claimed or on the basis of documents he is said to have produced. I find that a fresh consideration of the entire matter in accordance with law and evidence on record is C.R.P.No.528 of 2010 : 4 : necessary. I make it clear that in respect of the respective contentions, it is open to the parties to adduce further evidence if required. Resultantly this petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. O.P(Ele.).No.51 of 1998 is remitted to the court of learned Additional District Judge for fresh disposal in accordance with law and the evidence adduced by the parties. I make it clear that both sides will get opportunity to adduce further evidence if any in respect of their respective contentions . It is directed that learned Additional District Judge shall dispose of the matter as early as possible since the original petition is of the year 1998 and the tree cutting was some time prior to that. Parties shall appear in the trial court on 22-12-2010. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-