IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 525 of 2004()
1. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BHAVANIAMMA, KAROOR VADAKKATHIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. B.SAVITHIAMMA, -DO- -DO-
3. B.SOMAVALLY, -DO- -DO-
4. B.PRASANNA, -DO- -DO-
5. N.MOHANAN NAIR, -DO- -DO-
6. N.ANUSUJA, -DO- -DO-
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :18/11/2009
O R D E R
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.R.P. No. 525 of 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009.
ORDER
Aggrieved by the additional compensation granted
by the District Court, Alappuzha in O.P.(EA) 177 of 2002,
counter petitioner before the court below has come up in
revision.
2. It appears that 220 KV electric line was drawn
through the property of the respondents before the court below.
They sought compensation for the trees cut and removed and
for the diminution in land value. Details of the number of trees
cut and the nature of the trees cut are available from the order
of the court below. A sum of Rs.18,519/- was awarded as
compensation by the revision petitioner. Dissatisfied with the
compensation awarded by the revision petitioner, respondents
had approached the District Court. The District court found
that though the compensation granted for the yielding trees etc.
is reasonable, more amount is due to the respondents with
C.R.P.525/2004. 2
regard to pepper vines and an additional compensation of
Rs.2,940/- was awarded. Diminution in land value was assessed at
Rs.14,400/-. Thus total additional sum of Rs.17,340/- was
awarded.
3. According to the revision petitioner, the court below
has biased in taking into consideration the yield available from the
trees and erred in calculating the amount due for the diminution in
land value. According to the revision petitioner, the court ought
not to have accepted the claim of the respondents that the property
would have fetched more amounts and they are entitled to
compensation on that basis.
4. On going through the order of the court below, it can
be seen that the court below has considered the various aspects and
has come to the conclusion that the respondents are entitled to
additional compensation of Rs.17,340/-. It is seen that before the
court below petitioners had examined P.W.1 and marked Exts.A1
to A6. Exts.B1 and B2 are marked from the side of the revision
C.R.P.525/2004. 3
petitioner. It is seen that the respondents were unable to show that
the compensation given for trees cut and removed were inadequate
and they are entitled to get more compensation in that respect.
However, the court below found that as regards the pepper vines
are concerned, the yield has not been properly assessed and that the
annuity factor applied is not proper. Therefore the court below held
that the respondents are entitled to an additional amount of
Rs.2,940/-.
5. The court below assessed the extent of land affected
as 8 cents. Property is an agricultural land. The court below has
noticed that by the drawing of the line it is not as if the property
has become entirely useless, as the petitioners can utilise the same
by cultivating certain types of crops. It was on that basis that the
percentage in diminution in land value was assessed at 30%. In
support of the claim of the petitioners that the property will fetch
Rs.30,000/- per cent, no evidence whatsoever was adduced before
the court below. But taking note of Ext.A4, which is a copy of
C.R.P.525/2004. 4
the order in a similar matter, the court below assessed the land
value at Rs.6,000/- per cent and awarded an amount of
Rs.14,400/-. The amount awarded seems to be just and reasonable.
6. The claim of the revision petitioner that the
enhanced compensation awarded is very high has no basis. The
court below has given cogent and convincing reasons as to why it
has enhanced the amount. It is significant to notice that the
additional compensation has been given only in respect of pepper
vine and also the diminution in land value. Even though the
petitioner before the court below claimed Rs.30,000/- per cent as
the value of the property for the purpose of quantifying the
diminution in land value, the court below accepted Rs.6000/- as
market value. There is nothing to indicate that the enhanced
compensation awarded is excessive.
6. On going through the order, it cannot be said that
any grounds are made out to interfere with the order of the court
below. The court below has considered all the aspects and
C.R.P.525/2004. 5
awarded a just compensation taking note of various principles
involved in the assessment of compensation.
This Civil Revision Petition is without merit and it is
accordingly dismissed.
P. BHAVADASAN,
JUDGE
sb.
C.R.P.525/2004. 6
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
C.R.P. No. 525 of 2004
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
ORDER
18.11.2009.