IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 65 of 2007()
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SRI.M.N.SIVARAMAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB
For Respondent :SRI.S.K.MURALEEDHARA KAIMAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :08/02/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
C.R.P.NO.65 OF 2007 ()
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010
O R D E R
The revision is directed against the order dated
28.6.2006 in O.P.(Ele.)No.182 of 2004 passed by the District
Judge, Thodupuzha. The above O.P. was filed by the
respondent, hereinafter referred to as the ‘claimant’ seeking
enhanced compensation for the trees cut and removed and
also damages caused to his property by the drawing of
overhead lines by the Kerala State Electricity Board,
hereinafter referred as the ‘Board’. The claimant had raised a
claim for a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- as enhanced compensation.
The Board resisted that application contending that adequate
and reasonable compensation had been paid to the claimant.
In the enquiry over the claim, Exts.A1 to A7 were exhibited by
the claimant. For the respondent Board Ext.B1 valuation
statement was marked. On the materials placed and after
hearing the counsel on both sides, the court below awarded a
CRP.65/07 2
sum of Rs.13,455/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from 5.7.2002, the date of cutting and removing of the trees
till the date of realisation. So far as the sum of Rs.8,188/-
which had been paid earlier by the Board, interest was
directed to be paid at the rate of 9% per annum from the date
of cutting 5.7.2002 till the date of such payment 12.4.2004.
Enhanced compensation as above with direction to pay
interest as indicated above, is challenged in the revision.
3. I heard the counsel on both sides. The grievance
canvassed by the learned counsel for the Board is that though
no evidence was let in by the claimant to substantiate any of
the claims canvassed for enhanced compensation over and
above the sum fixed by the Board, the court has arbitrarily
reassessed the compensation, that too, reducing the
percentage of the maintenance cost which had been assessed
by the Board in assessing the compensation. In the case of
assessment of compensation due for the cutting and removal
of jack tree, the Board had taken into account 50% of the
maintenance cost with respect to the yield from that tree for
CRP.65/07 3
fixing the compensation payable. A sum of Rs.1,012/- was
fixed towards compensation for the tree with reference to the
yield assessed by the Board. Reducing the maintenance cost
fixed by the Board, the court has fixed a sum of Rs.1,500/- as
the compensation payable. Maintenance cost assessed by the
Board at 50% was deducted by the court at 30% without any
data is the ground urged by the counsel to contend that the
interference with the assessment made by the court is not
proper. I do not find any merit in the submission. So far as a
jack tree is concerned, normally, no expenditure towards
maintaining that tree is required. At the most, some
deductions can be made with reference to the dropping and
nothing else. Further more, the deduction made with respect
to the maintenance cost, where it was prima facie satisfied
that the deduction made at 50% by the Board was not correct,
cannot at all be found fault with. Similarly in the case of
pepper vines also, the maintenance cost assessed by the Board
was modified by the court. There is no data as to the extent of
the land nor any case for the Board that the claimant had to
engage some other person to maintain his pepper vines, which
CRP.65/07 4
had been cut and removed for drawing the overhead lines. It
is also noticed that 18 pepper vines had been cut and removed
for drawing such lines. The deduction made by the court with
respect to the maintenance cost fixed by the Board in the case
of pepper vines was not proper. The Board had assessed
annuity return at 5% to fix the compensation payable. The
court, following the guidelines and principles in Kumba
Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542 (FB)) has reassessed
the compensation at 5% annuity return. True, the guidelines
enunciated by this Court in the above decision have been
found to be inapplicable in all types of cases. But in respect of
a small tract of land, and that too in assessing compensation
with respect to 18 pepper vines and one jack tree, the
principles laid down in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha ((2007) 6 SCC
792) by the apex court regarding the factors like situs of the
land, how far and what extent the injury had been caused by
the drawing of the overhead lines to such land etc. are not
relevant. Further more, in the present case, it is also noticed
that the claim for the diminution of land value on account of
the drawing of the overhead lines canvassed by the claimant
CRP.65/07 5
was found against and there is no challenge against the
rejection of that claim. Taking that also into account, with
reference to the meagre sum awarded as compensation, that
too, a sum of Rs.13,455/-, I find that the challenges canvassed
in the revision contending that it is excessive and
unreasonable cannot be appreciated. I do not find any
impropriety in the assessment and awarding of the enhanced
compensation ordered by the court below. Revision lacks
merit and it is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp