IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 CRP.No. 11 of 2011() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/6/2010 IN OP(ELE.) NO.203/2005 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM --------------------- REVN. PETITIONER(S): COUNTER PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., (A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISES) HAVING ITS MANAGERS OFFICE AT 32, HORSE RACE ROAD BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA, T.C 7/1171, PONGUMMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL REVENUE OFFICER (COMPENSATION), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA, T.C 8/1210, PONGUMMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------------------- JAYAKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT MANGALASSERY VEEDU, THOLIKUZHI P.O., PULIMATH VIA, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ C.R.P.No.11 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 12 th day of January, 2011 ORDER The respondent filed O.P.(Ele.) No.203 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1951 and Section 42 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act claiming compensation. 2. For drawing a 220 K.V. double circuit transmission line, trees were cut from the property belonging to the respondent. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the respondent filed the Original Petition before the court below. He claimed that the compensation awarded for the trees cut was low. He also claimed compensation for diminution of land value. C.R.P.No.11 OF 2011 2 3. Before the court below, the only oral evidence available was that of the claimant as PW1. Both sides produced documents. 4. The court below considered the rival contentions of the parties and enhanced compensation on account of the trees cut, following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy and others(AIR 2002 SC 1423), State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and another(AIR 1996 SC 106) and K.S.E.B v. Livisha (2007(3) KLT 1 (SC)). 5. The court below fixed the compensation for the trees cut applying the multiplier at 8. All the relevant facts were considered by the court below for the purpose of fixing the compensation to be awarded on account of the trees cut. 6. As regards the claim for diminution of land C.R.P.No.11 OF 2011 3 value, the court below followed the principles laid down in K.S.E.B. V. Livisha (2007(3) KLT 1 (SC)). The claimant contended that the land value of the affected land would be 15,000/-. The court below fixed the market value at Rs.5,000/- and compensation on account of diminution of land value was awarded at that rate. The total enhanced compensation awarded was Rs.72,359.50. I do not think that the court below has committed any error or that it has fixed a higher amount as compensation. I do not think that any interference is called for. According, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms