IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 809 of 2005()
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SKARIA, S/O. CHACKO,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN(SR.)SC,KSEB
For Respondent :SRI.J.MATHAPPAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :25/03/2010
O R D E R
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.R.P. Nos. 809 & 1111 of 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010.
ORDER
Both the claimant and the respondent before
the court below have come up in revision against the
order of the IInd Additional District Court, Ernakulam in
O.P. Electricity 273 of 1996.
2. In the revision petition filed by the claimant,
ie., C.R.P. 1111 of 2005, the grievance is that the
compensation granted is inadequate. While the
grievance in the other revision petition by the
respondent is that the compensation is on the high side.
3. The respondent before the court below
utilized the property of the petitioner for drawing a 220
KV line. For that purpose, Electricity Board cut and
removed several trees standing in the property of the
claimant. The Board awarded a total compensation of
CRP809 & 1111/2005. 2
Rs.47,816/-. Feeling that the amount granted was
inadequate and insufficient, the claimant approached the
District Court. The District Court on an appreciation of the
evidence before it granted an additional compensation of
Rs.2,75,879/-.
4. According to the respondent Board this is on
the high side. The claimant is not entitled to such an
enhanced amount.
5. On going through the order of the lower court,
the court below has taken into consideration all aspects and
based its conclusion on the evidence adduced before the
said court. It is in accordance with the data available before
it that the court below has adopted the principle for
evaluation of the value of the trees cut and removed from
the property.
6. The respondent Board who has challenged the
enhanced compensation pointed out that the decision relied
on by the court below is not good law. But one has to notice
CRP809 & 1111/2005. 3
that no compensation for diminution in land value has been
granted by the court below, for which the claimant is entitled
to. It is well settled that he is entitled to a reasonable sum
as compensation for diminution in land value. Since it is not
granted, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded
for the trees cut and removed is on the high side.
Considering the number of trees cut and removed, a large
extent of the property must have been affected. No reason
is given for declining the relief of compensation for
diminution in land value. Moreover the lower court has
taken the data given by the Board itself and only a higher
yield is taken. There is nothing to show that the court below
has erred in any manner in arriving at the enhanced
compensation is nor is it in any way vitiated. The
compensation now granted is just and reasonable because a
high value is given under one head when the claimant is
deprived of compensation for another item, which he is
entitled to. The order of the court below does not call for
CRP809 & 1111/2005. 4
interference. Both the revisions are devoid of merits and
they are accordingly dismissed.
P. BHAVADASAN,
JUDGE
sb.