IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 351 of 2008()
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. LILLYKUTTY JOSEPH, D/O.JOSEPH,
... Respondent
2. GORETHY JOSEPH, D/O.JOSEPH,
3. GRACY JOSEPH, D/O.JOSEPH, PANIKKASSERY
For Petitioner :SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
For Respondent :SRI.P.J.JOSEPH PANIKKASSERY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :22/02/2010
O R D E R
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
————————————-
CRP No.351 of 2008
————————————-
Dated 22nd February 2010
Order
This is a petition, challenging the order of
enhancement of compensation granted in OP(Ele.)
No.104/99 by the Additional District Court, Alappuzha.
2. It appears that the respondent before the
Court below, who is the petitioner herein, cut and removed
some trees standing in the property belonging to the
respondents herein for the purpose of drawing a 110 KV
electric line. It is stated that 35 coconut trees and one pala
tree were cut and removed. The Board awarded
Rs.60,000/- as compensation for the trees cut and
removed from the property. The Board did not award any
amount towards diminution in land value.
3. The petitioner took up the matter before the
District Court as provided under Ss.10 to 16 of the Indian
Telegraph Act r/w S.51 of the Indian Electricity Act. The
CRP 351/08 2
Court below, relying on the decision reported in Kumba
Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542) enhanced the
compensation by Rs.54,000/- towards diminution in land
value. Thus the respondents were ordered to be paid a
total compensation of Rs.1,14,000/- with 6% interest from
the date of cutting of trees till realisation. The said order is
assailed in this petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
canvassed two points for consideration. It was pointed out
that the enhancement made by the order relying on Kumba
Amma’s case (supra) was not sustainable since the said
decision has already been reversed and it is no longer
good law. It is also pointed out that no Commission was
taken out and therefore, no evidence regarding the actual
extent of property was available.
5. Though there is some substance in the above
contention, one must notice that the present proceedings
were initiated in the year 1999. 11 years have elapsed. The
CRP 351/08 3
Court below relied on a decision which was then in force
and awarded the compensation. May be it is slightly on the
higher side. But, merely because the decision relied on by
the Court has been reversed, it is not proper to set aside
the order granting enhanced compensation. One must
remember that the petitioner has lost considerable income
in that regard. So, I feel that it is not proper to interfere
with the order enhancing the compensation, at this
juncture, also considering the drop in money value.
6. As far the diminution in land value is
concerned, though there was no commission taken in the
case, the Board must be having the necessary details,
which would show the extent of property affected. The
Court below, after evaluating the extent, has enhanced the
amount by Rs.54,000/-, which is only just and proper. Of
course, the Court below has observed that there is some
difference between the land of the petitioner and the land
for which value was assessed @ Rs.16,000/-. Whatever
that be, the enhancement made is only just and
CRP 351/08 4
reasonable.
7. Considering the above facts, it is felt that no
grounds are made out warranting interference with the
order of the Court below especially when future interest
awarded is only @ 6%. This Petition is devoid of any merit
and it is accordingly dismissed.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sta
CRP 351/08 5