IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 916 of 2007()
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
2. SRI. SHANMUGHAN,
Vs
1. SRI.SHANMUGHAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :17/03/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
---------------------------------------
C.M.Application No.1007 of 2007
& C.RP.No.916 of 2007
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010
O R D E R
Revision is directed against the order dated
15.10.1995 in O.P.(Ele)No.180/97 which was disposed of by a
common judgment with other petitions by the learned
Additional District Judge, Ad hoc-I, Ernakulam, awarding
enhanced compensation to the petitioner in the above
original petition. The respondent in the original petition, the
Kerala State Electricity Board [hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Board’] has filed the revision contending that the enhanced
compensation awarded by the court is excessive and
unreasonable. The revision was filed with a petition to
condone the delay of 144 days. Though notice was ordered
on the delay petition, till date, steps have not been taken by
the Board. The learned counsel appearing for the Board
sought for one more opportunity for taking steps on the delay
petition.
C.R.P.No.916 of 2007
:: 2 ::
2. Considering the fact that the revision has been
filed as early as in 2007 and steps have not been taken taken
so far, I find it necessary to examine the merit of the order
impugned to consider whether a fresh opportunity is to be
given to the Board for taking steps against the respondent
warranting a disposal of the revision on merits after hearing
the respondent.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the Board.
4. From the impugned order and also from the
submissions made by the learned counsel, it is seen that 110
KV electric lines from Bhrahmapuram to Panampilly Nagar
were drawn through the property of the respondent/claimant,
and the claim had been raised in respect of the loss sustained
by him.
5. It is seen from the order that the claimant had
possession of only 2.5 cents of land situated in Vyttila, a most
prominent place in the Kochi city. Towards the value of the
trees cut and removed, the Board had paid a sum of Rs.421/-.
C.R.P.No.916 of 2007
:: 3 ::
The claimant had claimed compensation for the injurious
affection over his land by the drawing of the line. The court
below, considering the market value of the land and taking
into account the injurious affection on account of the drawing
of the line, determined such compensation and awarded a
sum of Rs.39,375/- to the claimant. The land value was
fixed at Rs.45,000/- per cent and diminution of the land
value was determined at 35%. The learned District Judge
found that the entire extent of 2.5 cents owned and
possessed by the claimant suffered injurious affection by the
drawing of the line. The learned counsel for the Board
impeaches the correctness of the assessment of centage value
and also the percentage of diminution of value fixed by the
learned District Judge contending that both are excessive.
6. I do not find any merit in the submission. It is
seen that the centage value was fixed on the basis of a
commission report collected by deputing an advocate
commissioner and also examining other relevant materials
C.R.P.No.916 of 2007
:: 4 ::
produced in the case. Electric lines were drawn over the
property of the petitioner for drawing of 110 KV line. In the
case of 110 KV line and 220 KV line, it goes without saying
that not only the area through which the lines passed, but
also sufficient area on both sides have to be kept unhindered
for facilitating the free flow of energy. A clearing area has to
be provided to see that no obstruction is caused to the flow
of energy though such lines.
7. Having regard to the fact that the claimant
had only 2.5 cents over which 110 KV electric line has been
drawn, I find no impropriety or illegality in the conclusion
formed by the learned District judge that the entire area was
injuriously affected by the lines drawn over that property.
Over that small plot, the claimant is now prevented from
putting up any structure or growing any high yielding trees.
Practically, the whole property, so far as the claimant is
concerned, has been rendered useless.
C.R.P.No.916 of 2007
:: 5 ::
8. Viewed in the back drop that the land is
situated in a prominent place in the Kochi city, I find, the
compensation awarded by the court below cannot be
considered as excessive or unreasonable. In such
circumstances, I find that there is no merit in the revision.
Petition for condonation of delay and the revision
are dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)
JUDGE
sk/-
//true copy//