IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 321 of 2005() --------------------- OPELE.244/2002 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- POWER GRIND CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI..SHAFIK M ABDULKHADIR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------- 1. K.KARUNAKARAN, SATHYALAYAM, VATARAPLAV, THAMARAKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SMT. JAGADAMMA, SATHYALAYAM,VATARAPLAV, THAMARAKAULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH FOR R1 & R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON 20/12/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. ----------------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.321 of 2005 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 20th December, 2011. O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the first respondent in O.P.(Ele) No.244/02 on the file of the Additional District Court, Alappuzha. Respondents 1 and 2 herein were the petitioners in that O.P., which was filed by them under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. 2. The case of the petitioners in the O.P. is briefly as follows : For the purpose of drawing Kayamkulam - Edamon 220 KV electric line, 10 yielding Coconut trees, Anjily, Vatta and Poovarasu were cut and removed from 20 cents of property in Survey No.563/4, 5, 6 of Thamarakulam village, which belongs to the petitioners. The counter petitioner awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,725/-. The compensation awarded is not adequate or reasonable. No compensation was awarded for diminution in land value. Due to the drawing of electric line, 20 cents of property has become useless and unfit for any purpose. So, the land value has been diminished. The property is situated in a very important locality. The property would C.R.P.321/05 2 have fetched the market value at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per cent at the time of cutting of trees. Therefore, the petitioner claims a total compensation of Rs.9,02,275/-. The first counter petitioner filed counter statement contending that an adequate and reasonable compensation has been awarded for the trees cut and removed. It is also contended that the compensation awarded is on the basis of the actual yield and the productive life span. Due to the drawing of the electric line, value and utility of the property has not been injuriously affected. The petitioners are free to cultivate the property and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get compensation for diminished utility. 3. In the Additional District Court, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A5, B1 and B2 were marked. The learned Additional District Judge, on considering the evidence awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.4,328/- for the trees cut and removed and Rs.18,000/- towards compensation for diminution in land value. Against that order, the first respondent has filed this Civil Revision Petition. C.R.P.321/05 3 4. Relying on Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha (2007(3) KLT 1), learned counsel for the Board contended that determination of compensation made by the Court below is not in consonance with the principles and guidelines given by the Apex Court and so much so, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge suffers from jurisdictional infirmity and thus liable to be interfered with, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Perusing the impugned order, it is seen that the Board had assessed the compensation towards the value of trees cut and removed at 10% annuity and the Court below, taking note of the principles laid down in Kumba Amma v. Kerala State Electricity Board (2000(1) K.L.T. 542) passed by this Court, reassessed the compensation payable for fixing such compensation at 5% annuity. I find nothing in the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Livisha's case (supra) to hold that the assessment of the compensation, following the principles laid down in Kumba Amma's case (supra) cannot be C.R.P.321/05 4 made applicable depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court has held that compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees are concerned, the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course in a case where it is shown that fixation of compensation at 5% annuity would cause prejudice or injury to any of the parties involved depending upon the facts and circumstances in the case, a different yardstick can be applied for. No such special circumstance is made out in the present case to hold that the principles laid down in Kumba Amma's case are inapplicable to the case. 6. The learned Additional District Judge, in awarding compensation for diminution in land value, took 10 cents as the area injuriously affected due to the drawing of 220 KV line, considering the number of trees cut and removed. In Ext.A5, which is copy of the order in LAR 40/93 dated 20.12.2001, the land value fixed is Rs.7,856/- per cent. Since the property in the present case is less important than the property in Ext.A5, the Additional District Court fixed the land value in this case as C.R.P.321/05 5 Rs.6,000/- per cent. The Additional District Court assessed the percentage of diminution in land value as 30%. Calculating on that basis, the learned Additional District Judge fixed the compensation for diminution in land value as Rs.18,000/-. Since the learned Additional District Judge has awarded only a reasonable amount as compensation, I find no reason to interfere with that order. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, as it is without any merits. There is no order as to costs. Sd/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. tgs (True copy) P.S. to Judge.