IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.NO. 349 OF 2009() ----------------------------------- OPEA.88/2005 OF ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------ GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, PULIMPARAMBIL HOUSE, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUTH BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1 SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.349 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 O R D E R This Civil Revision is in challenge of the order of learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P.(E.A.) No.88 of 2005 relating to the drawal of 110 KV electric line over the property of petitioner. Various improvements were cut and removed from the property of petitioner. Respondent awarded Rs.10,219/- as compensation for value of improvements while no amount was awarded as compensation for (alleged) diminution in land value. Petitioner being aggrieved, moved learned Additional District Judge with O.P(E.A.) No.88 of 2005. Learned District Judge while accepting the data given by the respondent as to the yield and income therefrom, adopted 5% as annuity and awarded Rs.15,924/- as compensation for value of improvements. That part of the order is not challenged either by petitioner or the respondent and hence attained finality. 2. So far compensation claimed for diminution in land value is concerned, learned Additional District Judge referring to the report of the Advocate Commissioner found that two cents have been completely taken for construction of tower and that C.R.P. No.349 of 2009 -: 2 :- remaining extent affected by the drawal of line is three cents. Though petitioner produced Ext.A1 to show value of property, learned Additional District Judge did not accept that document since that document was of the year, 2006 while tree cutting was in the year, 1999. Land value was taken as Rs.10,000/- per cent and 30% of it was taken as compensation payable for diminution in land value. For two cents occupied by the tower, Rs.20,000/- was awarded while for the remaining three cents Rs.9,000/- was awarded. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that relevant documents are not taken into account. It is contended that property which is a residential plot is situated close to the National Highway and that report of the Advocate Commissioner was not taken into account in the proper perspective. Petitioner has produced Annexures (A) to (F) (in this proceeding) to contend that land value awarded by the learned Additional District Judge is on the lower side. Particular reference is made to Annexure (D), order passed by the learned Additional District Judge with reference to, as petitioner claims, property adjacent to the property of petitioner. It is pointed out by learned counsel that in Annexure (D), order land value fixed is Rs.20,000/- per C.R.P. No.349 of 2009 -: 3 :- cent. Petitioner claimed that since property of petitioner is better placed than property covered by Annexure (D) order, learned Additional District Judge ought to have fixed land value at least at Rs.30,000/- per cent. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent contended that there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge with respect to compensation awarded for diminution in land value. According to the learned Standing Counsel neither Ext.A1 nor Annexures (A) to (F) can be taken into account to fix value of land in question. 5. Annexures (A) to (F) were not produced before learned Additional District Judge. There is also no material before me to show comparable nature of property covered by the said documents and property involved in this case. As such I am not inclined to act upon the said documents in this proceeding. But having regard to the various circumstances I am inclined to give opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence in the court below as regards the land value. Civil Revision is allowed as follows: Order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha on 04.12.2008 in O.P(E.A.) No.88 of 2005 to the extent C.R.P. No.349 of 2009 -: 4 :- it concerned compensation awarded for diminution in land value is set aside and that claim is remitted to the learned Additional District Judge for fresh decision after giving both sides opportunity to adduce further evidence in the matter. Parties are directed to appear in the court below on 23.01.2012. Registry shall forward Annexures (D) to (F) produced by petitioner in this proceeding to the court below along with a copy of this order. All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv