IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 1153 of 2005()
1. K.P.KURIAKOSE, S/O.LATE PAILY,
... Petitioner
2. ANNAMMA KURIAKOSE, W/O.LATE
3. K.K.PAULOSE, S/O.LATE K.P.KURIAKOSE,
4. K.K.MARYKUTTY, D/O.LATE K.P.KURIAKOSE,
5. K.K.LEELAMMA, D/O.LATE K.P.KURIAKOSE,
6. K.K.CHINNAMMA, D/O.LATE K.P.KURIAKOSE,
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :01/03/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J
-------------------------------------
C.R.P No.1153 OF 2005
--------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of March 2010
ORDER
Revision is directed against the order dated
15/03/2005 in O.P(Ele.) No.61 of 2001 on the file of Additional
District Judge, Ernakulam. Revision petitioner is the claimant in
the above petition which has been filed seeking enhanced
compensation for the trees cut and removed and towards
diminution of land value suffered on account of the drawing of
overhead lines through his property by the respondent Kerala
State Electricity Board hereinafter referred to as the Board. The
Board, for the purpose of drawing 11KV feeder line to
Edakkattuvayal from Kakkadu Substation, cut and removed some
trees from the property of the petitioner. Towards the damages
sustained to the petitioner, claimant, the Board assessed and paid
a sum of Rs.6,988/-. Not being satisfied with the compensation
adjudged and paid by the Board, the above petition was filed by
the claimant under Section 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act
and Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act claiming enhanced
compensation. The Board resisted the claim contending that just
and reasonable compensation had been paid.
2. In the enquiry on the claim petition, claimant examined
himself as PW1 and got marked Exts.A1 to A10. On the side of
C.R.P No.1153 OF 2005 Page numbers
the Board, the file relating to the case involved was produced and
exhibited as Ext.R1. An advocate commissioner deputed by the
court after conducting a local inspection filed a report and plan
which is marked as Ext.C1. The Additional District Judge after
hearing the counsel on both sides and examining the materials
produced passed the impugned order awarding enhanced
compensation of Rs.36,838/- to the claimant allowing its recovery
with 6% interest from the date of cutting of trees till realisation
and also the cost of the proceedings. Challenging the enhanced
compensation assessed by the court as inadequate the claimant
has filed this revision.
3. I heard the counsel on both sides. The grievance
espoused by the claimant was that in addition to the trees cut and
removed branches of some more trees, which are made
mentioned in Ext.A2 Mahazar, had also been cut and thereby he
had suffered damages. Such damages were not taken into
account by the Board in adjudging the compensation was pressed
before me by the learned counsel contending that the revised
statement filed by the claimant before the court below deserved
implicit acceptance. The claimant in his revised statement had
shown three tables, the first one with reference to the trees cut
and removed as claimed by by the Board, the second table with
reference to Ext.A2 Mahazar prepared and the third one on the
C.R.P No.1153 OF 2005 Page numbers
basis of the complaint purported to have been made by the
claimant to the Board. Perusing the impugned order, it is seen,
the learned Additional District Judge found that the revised
calculation with respect to Ext.R1(a) alone that is first table, is
acceptable as there was dearth of material to substantiate the
case of the claimant to show that branches of some more trees
mentioned in Ext.A2 Mahazar too had been cut and removed.
However, taking note that the Board had assessed annuity return
at 10% only, following the guidelines given in “Kumba Amma v
Kerala State Electricity Board” (2000(1) KLT 542), the
learned Additional District Judge redetermined the compensation
with reference to annuity return at 5% and accordingly an
enhanced compensation of Rs.14,488/- was awarded. The only
challenge canvassed in the revision with respect to the tree
cutting awarded compensation relate to the nonacceptance of the
claim made by the claimant that he was entitled to get
compensation for the trees from which branches are alleged to
have been cut and removed. Other than the self serving evidence
of the claimant, there was nothing more before the court to
accept his case that branches of the trees made mentioned in
Ext.A2 Mahazar had been cut by the Board to facilitate the
drawing of line. In exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, I find it is
not proper and appropriate for this court to reappreciate the
C.R.P No.1153 OF 2005 Page numbers
materials when there is apparently no reason to hold that the
view formed by the District Judge on the materials placed that the
Board had cut and removed only the trees as covered by Ext.R1
(a) is incorrect. The learned counsel for the claimant had raised a
grievance against the area of land determined as injuriously
affected by the drawing of line and also the value fixed over that
land by the court below. It is submitted by the counsel that
copies of registered sale deeds have been produced to
substantiate his claim that property in that locality is worth more
than Rs.15,000/- per cent. The advocate commissioner has also
reported that the centage value of the property varied from
Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. But the district Judge fixed the
centage value at Rs.7,500/- per cent is the grievance espoused to
challenge the compensation awarded towards diminution of land
value as inadequate. The District Judge on the materials placed
has fixed the value of the land at Rs.7,500/- taking note of the
materials produced in the case. Production and marking of
certified copies of sale deeds, without anything more, is not
sufficient for acceptance of the land value shown in such deeds.
Advocate commissioner in opining the land value has not
furnished any data to support it, nor the nature of enquiry
conducted to give such opinion. In such circumstances I do
not find any impropriety or illegality in the order of the court
C.R.P No.1153 OF 2005 Page numbers
below in fixing the centage value at Rs.7,500/-. The claimant had
a grievance a mistake was committed by the advocate
commissioner in assessing the area over which the line passed
through his property. Other than filing objections to the
commission report, neither the commissioner was examined nor
the objection so canvassed was substantiated before the court.
The court below has accepted the injuriously affected area as
determined by the commissioner to fix the compensation payable
towards diminution of land value. It is also noticed, a higher
percentage, 40% was taken by the court though the line drawn
was only 11KV line. The higher percentage fixed to determine the
injurious affection of the land in fact has benefited the claimant
when compensation was adjudged on that ground. On
consideration of the entire facts and circumstances presented
with reference to the impugned order passed by the court below, I
find no interference with the order is called for in exercise of the
revisional jurisdiction. Revision is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv