IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 595 of 2008()
1. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VARGHESE GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE,
... Respondent
2. SHERLY VAREGHESE, W/O.VARGHESE GEORGE,
For Petitioner :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
For Respondent :SRI.A.SHAFEEK
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :22/09/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------
C.R.P.No.595 of 2008
---------------------------------------
Dated this 22nd day of September, 2010
ORDER
This revision is in challenge of an order passed by learned
Additional District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P.(Ele).No.281 of 2002
awarding enhanced compensation for drawal of 220kv line
through the property of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Special
Tahsildar (LA) has assessed compensation payable for value of
improvements and not being satisfied, respondent Nos.1 and filed
petition before the learned Additional District Judge. Learned
Additional District Judge awarded a total sum of 1,12,337/- as
additional compensation with interest @9% from the date of
cutting. That order is under challenge in this revision at the
instance of respondent No.1 in the court below. Learned counsel
for petitioner states that additional compensation awarded is
excessive. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2
supported the order.
2. So far as value of improvement is concerned, it is seen
that data regarding number of trees, age, yield etc, given by the
Special Tahsildar (LA) on behalf of petitioner has been accepted
by the learned Additional District Judge. The change made by the
C.R.P.No.595 of 2008
: 2 :
learned Additional District Judge is that while respondent No.2 has
taken 10% as annuity, learned Additional District Judge has taken it
as 5% relying on the decision of this court in Kumba Amma Vs.
KSEB (2000(1) KLT 542) and based on that, fixed the
compensation payable for value of improvements at Rs.1,42,674/-.
Less the amount already paid, the additional compensation payable
is fixed as Rs.67,337/-. Though, it is contended by learned counsel
for petitioner that amount awarded is excessive I do not find reason
to interfere as I stated that the only change made by learned
Additional District Judge is in the annuity factor relying on the
decision of this court.
3. What remained is compensation awarded for
diminished land value. It cannot be disputed that on account of
drawal high tension line property has been injuriously. Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to get compensation for diminished land
value. Relying on Exts.C1 and C1(a), extent of land affected is
fixed as 30 cents. To prove the land value respondent Nos.1 and 2
produced Ext.A10, copy of the award in L.A.R.No.40 of 1993 and
connected cases relating to the property situated in the locality.
The Advocate Commissioner has reported in Ext.C1 that important
institutions are situated within a distance of 3kms from the petition
schedule property. Commissioner also stated after local
C.R.P.No.595 of 2008
: 3 :
investigation that land value is between Rs.15,000/- to Rs.25,000/-
per cent but, respondent Nos.1 and 2 stated in the petition land
value as more than Rs.10,000/- per cent. Taking that also into
account, learned Additional District Judge has fixed land value as
Rs.5,000/- per cent which is not excessive. 30% of the said amount
is taken as basis for fixation of diminished land value. I must also
take into account that though a tower was installed in the property
(as learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 say towards the
middle of the property rendering the entire property useless) no
separate compensation has been awarded for land affected by the
installation of tower. Compensation awarded for diminished land
value in the circumstance cannot be said to be exorbitant.
4. What remained is whether interest awarded @9% is
excessive and interest should have been allowed from the date of
cutting. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that rate
of interest is excessive and it should have been from the date of
petition. I am afraid, having regard to the circumstances stated I
am unable to give my assent to that contention. Reason is that
though 9% interest may appear to be excessive at the first blush, I
must take into account the fact that a tower has been constructed
in the property but no compensation has been awarded for that.
Bearing these aspects in mind I am not inclined to think that rate of
C.R.P.No.595 of 2008
: 4 :
interest awarded is excessive. Compensation awarded by the
learned Additional District Judge was payable to the petitioner on
the date of tree cutting. Hence cause of action for respondent
Nos.1 and 2 arose on the date of tree cutting. If that be so, for
amount withheld or for delayed payment respondent Nos.1 and 2
are entitled to get damages in the form of interest. Hence award of
interest from the date of tree cutting is not illegal.
Revision petition fails. It is dismissed.
(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-