IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 861 of 2005()
1. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SMT. KAUSALYA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.SHAFIK
For Respondent :SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :19/11/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
C.R.P.No.861 of 2005
---------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009
O R D E R
Revision is directed against the order dated 20.1.2005 in
O.P.No.453 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional District
Judge, Alappuzha. Respondent in the above O.P., namely, Power
Grid Corporation of India, hereinafter referred to as the
Corporation, is the revision petitioner. The above O.P. was filed
by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, under
Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and under Section 51 of
the Indian Electricity Act seeking enhanced compensation for the
trees cut and removed for the drawing of overhead lines through
her property having an extent of 30 cents comprised in
Thekkekkara Village in Kayamkulam for the drawing of
Kayamkulam-Edamon 220KV High Tension Electric Line by the
Corporation. Towards compensation for the trees cut and
removed from the property of the claimant the Corporation
awarded a sum of Rs.11,669/-. Challenging the compensation so
provided as inadequate and unreasonable, claimant filed the
C.R.P.No.861 of 2005
2
above O.P seeking enhanced compensation. The Corporation
resisted the application contending just and reasonable
compensation had been paid on a proper valuation and
assessment of the relevant matters involved in the cutting and
removal of the trees from the property for drawing of the line. In
the enquiry on the petition claimant was examined as PW1 and
A1 to A7 were exhibited. No evidence was adduced by the
Corporation. Learned District Judge after appreciating the
materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides
reassessed the compensation payable and awarded a sum of
Rs.12,204/- as enhanced compensation directing the Corporation
to pay such sum with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in this
revision.
2. I heard the counsel on both sides.
3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/Corporation
assailed the order of the learned District Judge contending that
relevant principles applicable for determination of the
compensation in respect of drawing of electric lines on cutting
C.R.P.No.861 of 2005
3
and removal of trees have not been followed and further the
court below in reassessment of the compensation has relied on
the decision rendered in Kumba Amma v. KSEB (2000(1)KLT
542). Since the principles laid down thereunder stand
disapproved by the Apex Court in KSEB v. Livisha (2007(3)
KHC 53) a reconsideration of the questions involved by setting
aside the impugned order and remitting the matter to the court
below, according to the counsel, is essential to advance the ends
of justice.
4. Perusing the impugned order, I find that seven
coconut trees from the property of the petitioner had been cut
and removed for the drawing of the electric lines, out of which six
were yielding and one nonyielding. The Corporation had
assessed the compensation adopting 10% annuity return which
have been found unsuitable by this Court in Kumba Amma’s
case taking a view that 5% annuity return has to be followed in
assessment and determination of compensation for cutting and
removing of trees. Learned District Judge following the principles
laid down in Kumba Amma’s case reassessed the compensation
C.R.P.No.861 of 2005
4
payable towards cutting and removal of trees and found that the
claimant is entitled to Rs.10,104.19/- fixing it at 5% annuity
return. The Apex Court in Livisha’s case has expressed the view
that assessment of compensation has to be made with reference
to the situs of the land, its location and other factors necessary to
be taken into consideration. Having regard to the fact that
enhanced compensation awarded is meagre and with reference to
the trees cut and removed which included 6 yielding coconut
trees, I find no interference with the reassessment of
compensation made by the District Judge is called for in the
present case. So far as the diminution of land value which was
also claimed by the claimant, the court below repelling the case
of the plaintiff that the property has centage value of Rs.35,000/-
fixed it at Rs.1,000/- and on the basis it proceeded to analyse to
what extent the diminution of land value has been suffered by
the drawing of line and the extent of land so affected. A sum of
Rs.2,100/- had been assessed by the court forming a view that 7
cents of land were affected to the extent of 20%. Needless to
point out towards diminution of land value and also injurious
C.R.P.No.861 of 2005
5
affectation suffered by the claimant for the drawing of the electric
lines is also very meagre. That being so, I find exercise of
revisional jurisdiction is uncalled for in the present case.
Determination of the enhanced compensation by the learned
District Judge is proper and correct, and no interference is
warranted.
There is no merit in the revision, and it is closed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-