IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 301 of 2007()
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SMT. UMA SHANMADHURAN, AGED 55 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB
For Respondent :SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :11/02/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------------
C.R.P.No.301 of 2007
-----------------------------------------------
Dated the the 11th day of February, 2010
O R D E R
Revision is directed against the order
dated 22.3.2006 in O.P.(Electricity) No.315/02
passed by the Additional District Judge (Ad hoc-
II), Ernakulam. The respondent in the revision
petition (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
claimant’) filed the above original petition under
Section 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and
Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act claiming
enhanced compensation for the trees cut and
removed and also towards the diminution of land
value of her property on account of drawing of
electric lines through that property by the
revision petitioner (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Board’). Towards the compensation for the
trees cut and removed for drawing of the line, the
Board had assessed and paid compensation of
C.R.P.No.301 of 2007
:: 2 ::
Rs.33,190/- to the claimant. Contending that the
compensation paid is unreasonable and inadequate
the claimant preferred the above original petition
(O.P.(Electricity) No.315/02). The Board resisted
that application contending that just and
reasonable compensation had already been paid.
2. In the enquiry over the claim raised,
the claimant was examined and Ext.A1 was marked on
her side. On the side of the Board only the
detailed valuation statement was got marked. An
Advocate Commissioner deputed by the court, after
conducting local inspection, filed a report and
plan which were exhibited as Ext.C1. The electric
lines were admittedly drawn through the property
of the claimant having an extent of 18.6 cents of
land comprising a residential building. The report
of the Advocate Commissioner, Ext.C1, disclosed
that the line was drawn cut across through the
C.R.P.No.301 of 2007
:: 3 ::
middle of the property. Though the Commissioner
had assessed the land value at Rs.75,000/- per
cent noting the importance of the locality wherein
a temple and other public offices are situate
closeby, the court below relying on a sale deed
executed over 7 cents of land situate closeby,
fixed the land value at Rs.20,000/- per cent.
Fixing the amount for injurious affection on the
land for drawing of the line at 30% and taking
note that the line had been drawn across the
property, the learned District Judge concluded
that the entire land was injuriously affected and
in that view of the matter, compensation of
Rs.1,11,900/- was awarded to the claimant for the
diminution of the land value of her property.
3. Admittedly, the Board had assessed the
compensation for the trees cut and removed at 10%
annuity return and thus fixed the same at
C.R.P.No.301 of 2007
:: 4 ::
Rs.33,190/-. Taking note of the guidelines and the
judicial pronouncements rendered by this court in
ascertaining and fixing compensation towards the
value of the trees, the court below fixed annuity
return at 5% and re-assessed the compensation. On
such re-assessment, additional compensation
towards the trees cut and removed was found to be
Rs.20,000/- and it was accordingly awarded. The
learned counsel for the Board contended that the
principle enunciated by this court for fixation at
5% annuity return had been found to be not correct
by the Apex Court in the decision in K.S.E.B. v.
Livisha and others {2007(3) K.L.T. 1} and so much
so, the compensation fixed by the court below was
not correct. Similarly, it is further contended
that the land value fixed and also the percentage
of injurious affection determined was also on the
higher side. In Livisha’s case the Apex Court has
C.R.P.No.301 of 2007
:: 5 ::
held that the importance of the locality,
closeness of the public office etc., have also to
be considered in fixing the compensation for the
diminution of land due to the drawing of the
electric line through the property.
4. I find that the learned District Judge
has taken the relevant factors with reference to
Ext.A1 title deed over the adjoining land in
fixing the land value. 30% of the land value
fixed towards injurious affection in the given
facts of the case cannot be stated to be excessive
where it is seen that the overhead lines had cut
across through the middle of the property. I find,
stated there is any impropriety in the fixation of
the compensation towards diminution of the land
value by the court below. Enhanced compensation
awarded for the trees cut and removed, is found to
be just and reasonable. In exercise of revisional
C.R.P.No.301 of 2007
:: 6 ::
jurisdiction interference with an order passed by
the inferior court is permissible only if there is
jurisdictional infirmity which if not be corrected
would result in miscarriage of justice. There is
no jurisdictional infirmity in the orders passed
by the court below and no ground is made out for
exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the present
case.
Civil Revision Petition lacks merit and is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)
JUDGE
SK/-
//true copy//