IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 798 of 2008()
1. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.C.MURALI, PULLIPURATHU HOUSE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
For Respondent :SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :30/09/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------
C.R.P.No.798 of 2008
---------------------------------------
Dated this 30th day of September, 2010
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2. This revision is in challenge of order passed by
learned Additional District Judge, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(Ele).
No.212 of 2000 awarding Rs.70,888/- as additional compensation
for tree cutting and for diminished land value. It is not disputed
that 220kv line was drawn through property of petitioner and in
connection with that, 4 yielding coconut trees and two arecanut
trees were cut and removed accepting the detailed valuation
statement produced by the petitioner. Learned Additional
District Judge rejected claims made by respondent as to the
number of trees cut, yield and future income and held that the
trees involved are 4 yielding coconut trees and 2 arecanut trees.
Other datas contained in the detailed valuation statement were
also accepted but instead of 10% annuity adopted by the
petitioner, learned Additional District Judge has accepted 5%
annuity in the light of the decision in Kumba Amma Vs. KSEB
(2000(1) KLT 542). That brought the additional compensation
payable for value of improvements as Rs.28,948.06/-.
C.R.P.No798 of 2008
: 2 :
3. The next count on which compensation was awarded
is for diminished land value. Reliance is placed on Exts.C1 to C3
report, mahazar and sketch prepared by the Advocate
Commissioner which were not under challenge. Learned
Additional District Judge has fixed extent of land affected by the
drawal of line as 13.980 cents. It cannot be disputed that on
account of drawal of high extension line land value is diminished
since respondent is not able to cultivate permanent crops or
construct buildings in that area. Hence respondent is entitled to
get compensation for diminished land value.
4. So far as value of land is concerned, respondent
produced Ext.A1 to show that the land value is around
Rs.25,000/- per cent. But evidence revealed that Ext.A1 property
is situated about 500 meters away from petition schedule
property. Learned Additional District Judge, from the evidence
found that Ext.A1 property has more proximity to public
institutions and hence value stated in Ext.A1 cannot as such be
accepted. Taken into account the fact that Ext.A1,assignment
deed was executed in favour of co-operative society and the
circumstances proved in the case, learned Additional District
Judge has fixed value for petition schedule property as
C.R.P.No798 of 2008
: 3 :
Rs.15,000/- per cent which cannot be stated to be excessive in
the light of the evidence. For the purpose of fixing compensation
for diminished land value, 20% of land value is taken.
Compensation payable for diminished land value come to
Rs.41940/-. Thus additional compensation payable came to
Rs.70,888.06/- which is rounded as Rs.70,888/-. It is contended
by learned counsel for petitioner that amount awarded is
excessive. According to learned counsel for respondent no
interference is required.
5. I stated that so far as additional compensation for
value of improvements is concenred, only change learned
Additional District Judge has made is acceptance of 5% annuity in
the light of the decision referred to supra and that required no
interference. So far as diminished land value is concerned, it is
based on materials on record that compensation was fixed.
Having heard counsel on both sides and gone through the order
under challenge I do not find reason to interfere in revision.
Resultantly this petition is dismissed.
(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-