IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 2966 of 2001()
1. K.S.E.B
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHAZHISSERI JOSEPH
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :09/02/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J
-------------------------------------
C.R.P No.2966 OF 2001
--------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of February 2010
ORDER
Revision is directed against the order dated
22/09/2000 in O.P No.323/1998 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Thalassery. The respondent in the revision
hereinafter referred to as the claimant filed the above O.P under
Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act r/w Section 51 of the
Indian Electricity Act seeking enhanced compensation for the
trees cut and removed and damages caused to his property
through which overhead electric lines were drawn by the revision
petitioner hereinafter referred to as the Board. Though the Board
resisted the application contending that adequate and reasonable
compensation had been paid to the claimant, after examining the
materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides, the
learned District Judge found that the claimant is entitled to
enhanced compensation on reassessment following the guidelines
and principles applicable in adjudging such a claim. The claimant
was awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.41,256/- directing
payment of 8% interest per annum on Rs24,525/- out of that sum
as well till payment by the Board. Propriety and correctness of
that order is challenged in the revision by the Board.
C.R.P No.2966 OF 2001 Page numbers
2. Notice was ordered to the claimant, but despite
service, he has not entered appearance. I heard the learned
counsel for the petitioner/Board. Compensation awarded is
excessive and unreasonable and the impugned order does not
reflect the determination of the compensation for the trees nor
the sum was awarded towards the diminution of land value,
according to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Remission of
the case after setting aside the impugned order is canvassed by
the counsel. Perusing the impugned order, it is seen that after
examining the merit of the enhanced compensation claimed by
the claimant with reference to the materials tendered, the learned
District Judge had directed the claimant to file a calculation
statement in accordance with the assessment made by the court
in the matter of fixing compensation towards the cutting and
removal of the trees and also for diminution of land value.
Rubber trees alone were cut down from the property of the
claimant for drawing the line. Board had assessed the
compensation after deducting 60% of the income collected from
the trees towards maintenance expenses, and it was accepted by
the court below as well negativing the challenges of the claimant
that only a lesser percentage ie, 30% alone was incurred by him
towards maintenance expenses. The number of days of tapping
and taking of latex from the trees in an year was also fixed at 100
C.R.P No.2966 OF 2001 Page numbers
days negativing the case of the claimant that the trees gave yield
for 160 days. So far as the claim under diminution of land value
repelling the case of the claimant that the centage value of his
property is Rs.10,000/-, the court has fixed it at Rs.1000/- only
and injurious affectation was limited to 20%. On the above basis,
with reference to the commission report prepared and filed by an
advocate commissioner after conducting local inspection fixing
the area affected by the drawing of the line, the court directed the
claimant to file a calculation statement both in respect of the
compensation payable to the trees cut and removed and also
towards diminution of the land value affected by the drawing of
overhead line. Calculation statement so filed by the claimant, it is
seen from the order, was accepted by the Board. In fact, the
order shows that an endorsement was made in that calculation
statement by the counsel appearing for the Board that it has no
objection. When such be the case, challenge raised against the
award of enhanced compensation accepting the calculation
statement over which the Board had no objection can never be
impeached by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this court.
Further more, perusing the impugned order, I find, the directions
given by the court for calculating the enhanced compensation
fixing the number of days of the trees, centage value of the
property, percent to be taken towards the injurious affectation of
C.R.P No.2966 OF 2001 Page numbers
such land etc. cannot be viewed as improper or beyond the
jurisdiction vested with that court. At any rate there is no
jurisdictional infirmity in the order passed by the court below
inviting the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this court.
Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv