IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 111 of 2001(A)
1. THE K.S.E.BOARD
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.A.BAVA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, KSEB
For Respondent :SRI.ESM.KABEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :12/06/2008
O R D E R
P.R.Raman &
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.R.P.No.111 of 2001
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008.
O R D E R
Ramachandran Nair, J.
This revision is filed challenging the order passed in O.P.(Ele.)
No.83/1996 on the file of the Addl. District Court, N. Parur. The petition
was filed by the first respondent under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity
Act and Sections 10 and 16 of Indian Telegraph Act, seeking additional
compensation for the trees cut and compensation for diminution in land
value.
2. The facts show that for drawing 220 KV electric line, various trees
like coconut, pepper-vine, rubber and jack tree were cut and removed.
Additional compensation to the tune of Rs.19,20,312/- was claimed by the
petitioner. The court below has allowed realisation of an additional
compensation of Rs.1,36,104/- with interest at 6% from 14.8.1996.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The court below analysed
the evidence including the Commissioner’s report for considering the claim
for additional compensation. After considering the gross yield from one
tapped rubber tree, number of tapping days, the net yield and net income,
CRP 111/2001 -2-
etc. capitalised value of 123 rubber trees has been arrived at. By the same
method, additional compensation has been arrived at for four coconut trees
as well as 24 peppervines. These were the major items of claims. The total
compensation for the yielding trees was arrived at an amount of
Rs.1,40,037/- and deducting the amount paid, the additional compensation
was fixed at Rs.1,12,474/-. For diminution in land value for an extent of 50
cents of land, an amount of Rs.23,630/- has been awarded.
4. Even though it was contended that the compensation awarded is on
a higher side, we find no reason to accept the said contention. The method
adopted is an accepted one. The court below has awarded interest only at
6% from 14.8.1996 till realisation. Therefore, the order does not call for
any interference on that count also.
For all these reasons, the C.R.P. is dismissed confirming the order
passed by the court below. No costs.
( P.R.Raman, Judge.)
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
CRP 111/2001 -3-
kav/
P.R.Raman &
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
C.R.P.No.111 of 2001
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
JUDGMENT
12th June, 2008.