IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 457 of 2008()
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AMEER HAMSA, S/O. MULAKKAL KUNHIMOIDU,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
For Respondent :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :06/08/2009
O R D E R
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.R.P.No.457 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 6th August, 2009
ORDER
The revision is directed against the order dated 8.3.2007 in
O.P.(Ele.)No.29 of 1999 passed by the First Additional District Judge,
Palakkad. The respondent filed the above O.P. under Section 51 of
the Indian Electricity Act seeking enhanced compensation for the
damages to his property by the drawing of overhead lines by the
Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’).
For the purpose of drawing 220 KV Thrichur-Calicut line, valuable
trees were cut down from his property and by the overhead line
drawn the property suffered injurious affectation and diminution his
land value was the case canvassed by the respondent contending that
the compensation paid by the Board was inadequate and
unreasonable. The Board has provided only a compensation of
Rs.63,016/- whereas the loss was much more was the case the
claimant. Resisting the claim for enhanced compensation, the Board
contended that reasonable compensation had been paid. In the
enquiry on the petition, an advocate commissioner conducted a local
inspection and filed a report ascertaining the matters essential for a
proper and fair adjudication of the claim. On the side of the plaintiff,
CRP No.457/08 – 2 –
he was examined as P.W.1. Two valuation statements prepared at
different points of time were exhibited as A1 and B1. The learned
Additional District Judge, after appreciating the materials produced
and recalculating the compensation providing 5% annuity return in
the place of 10% annuity return adopted by the Board for providing
compensation to the trees cut and removed arrived at the conclusion
that a sum of Rs.91,486.97 was payable to the respondent. So much
so, deducting the compensation of Rs.52,618.72 already paid by the
Board on that count, it was held that the respondent is entitled to
have an enhanced compensation of Rs.38,868.25 on that count.
Towards diminution of the land value on account of the drawing of the
overhead line, the claim of the respondent was based on the basis of
the market of the property at Rs.15,000/- per cent. On the basis of
the commission report, the learned Additional District Judge found 64
cents of land out of three acres of the property of the respondent was
injuriously affected by the drawing of the overhead line. Taking note
of the material circumstances presented, the land value was fixed at
Rs.3000/- per cent and diminution suffered on account of the
drawing of the overhead lines was fixed at 20% by the learned
District Judge. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.35,400/- was assessed as the
CRP No.457/08 – 3 –
sum payable towards diminution of land value. On the materials
placed in the case, I find that the assessment of the land value and
the percentage of diminution in land value made by the Additional
District Judge cannot be considered as in appropriate. No justifiable
circumstance has been canvassed to show that the area determined
and the compensation fixed suffered from any infirmity. The total
enhanced compensation adjudged by the court below at Rs.74,268/-
as payable to the respondent in the given facts of the case is found to
be unassailable. Challenges raised in the revision impeaching its
correctness are devoid of any merit. Revision is dismissed.
srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE