IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 243 of 2010()
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
Vs
1. JAGADAMMA PILLAI, AGED 84 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
For Petitioner :SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
For Respondent :SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :06/09/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH,J.
---------------------------------------
C.R.P.NO. 243 OF 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010.
ORDER
This revision is in challenge of order passed by learned Addl. District
Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.(Ele.) No.310/2004 awarding
enhanced compensation to respondent No.1. It is not disputed that
yielding and non yielding improvements were removed from the
property of respondent No.1 for drawal of 110 KV line. Petitioner
awarded Rs.47,373/- as compensation which according to
respondent No.1 was megre and accordingly he filed petition against
petitioners and respondents No.2. Learned Addition District Judge
awarded Rs.1,34,500/- by way of additional compensation with
interest but, without specifying the rate of interest. Learned counsel
for petitioners contends that amount awarded is excessive and
without any basis. No commission was taken out for assessment of
C.R.P.NO. 243 OF 2010 2
the compensation.
2. Learned Additional District Judge has awarded
compensation on to heads-additional compensation for value of
improvements and compensation for diminished land value. So far
as additional compensation awarded for value of improvements is
concerned, it is no disputed that apart from a few Anjili trees, 122
rubber plants were removed of which 57 were yielding rubber plants
in the age group of 8-9 years and the remaining 55, non yielding, in
the age group of 5 years. Learned Additional District Judge found
that in respect of the yielding rubber plants an enhancement of
Rs.1,000/- per plant and in respect of the non yielding rubber plants,
enhancement of Rs.500/- per plant is reasonable. It is true that,
respondent No.1 did not take out a commission to assess the
compensation. But, learned Addl. District Judge has referred to
C.R.P.NO. 243 OF 2010 3
Ext.A2, mahazar prepared by the petitioner and based on that,
assessed compensation. Though learned counsel for petitioner
argued that additional compensation awarded is excessive, I find
myself unable to assent to that argument. In considering whether,
compensation awarded is excessive, possible yield the trees would
have given in future has to be taken into account. The yielding
rubber plants which were in the age group of 8-9 years it would have
normally given yield for another 12 years. The non yielding rubber
plants, aged 5 years would have started giving yield within another 3
or 4 years and continued to give yield for about 12 years.
Considering these aspects and also, the normal expenses
respondent No.1 would have incurred to bring up the improvements,
I am not inclined to think that additional compensation awarded by
learned Addl. District Judge is exorbitant so that revisional court is
C.R.P.NO. 243 OF 2010 4
required to interfere.
3. So far as compensation for diminished land value is
concerned, here again no doubt respondent No.1 did not take out a
commission to assess land value or area affected by drawal of
lines. Learned Addl. District judge has taken the area affected by
drawal of the line as 50 cents. The improvements removed are 122
rubber plants, yielding and non yielding and few non yielding Angili
trees. In view of that, assessment of extent of land affected as 50
cents is not unreasonable. So far as the land value is concerned,
respondent No.1 in his evidence as PW1 claimed it as Rs.30,000/-
per cent. True, no document was produced by respondent No.1.
But, considering the area where the land is situated learned Addl.
District Judge has fixed the land value at Rs.5,000/- per cent which
having regard to the normal land value cannot be said to be
C.R.P.NO. 243 OF 2010 5
excessive. The drawal of the high tension line prevented respondent
No.1 from planting permanent crops and constructing buildings
underneath the lines. It follows that utility of the land is affected and
that has diminished the land value. Respondent No.1 is entitled to
get compensation for that. Here, considering the injury to which the
land is put, 20% of the land value has been taken as bar is for fixing
compensation payable for diminished land. Thus, compensation
payable for diminished land value came to Rs.50,000/-(50 x 500 x
20/100). It is not excessive. Thus, additional compensation payable
to respondent No.1 came to Rs.1,34,500/-. Having regard to the
facts and circumstances of this case, which I have stated above the
award calls for for no interference.
4. It is seen from the order under challenge that though
learned Addl. District Judge has found that respondent No.1 is
C.R.P.NO. 243 OF 2010 6
entitled to get interest on the enhanced compensation the rate of
interest has not been stated. Tree cutting was in the year 1995.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances including rate of
interest on fixed deposits prevailing in the meantime, I am inclined to
fix the rate of interest at 6% per annum.
Resultantly, with the direction that respondent No.1 will get
interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation
from date of cutting till realisation, this revision petition is dismissed.
THOMAS P JOSEPH,JUDGE.
pm