IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 784 of 2008()
1. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUDHAMANI,W/O.SURESH,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
For Respondent :SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :27/09/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
C.R.P.No.784 of 2008
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010.
ORDER
This revision is in challenge of the order passed by learned Additional
District Judge, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(Ele.) No.309 of 1998 awarding enhanced
compensation of Rs.98,043/-. For the purpose of drawal of 220 KV line
improvements were cut down from property of respondent. Petitioner paid
Rs.57,331.88 by way of compensation. Not satisfied with that, respondent filed
the petition before the learned District Judge.
2. So far as the additional compensation for tree cutting is concerned,
it is seen that datas furnished by the petitioner regarding age, nature of
improvements, etc. was accepted by the learned District Judge and the only
change made is that while petitioner had taken 10% annuity the learned District
Judge has adopted 5% annuity based on the decision in Kumba Amma v.
K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542). Accordingly compensation payable for value of
improvements was assessed at Rs.86,434.79 and less the sum of
Rs.57,331.88 already paid, balance amount came to Rs.29,102.91. It is
contended by petitioner that the amount awarded is excessive. I do not find
reason to interfere with the enhanced compensation awarded for value of
improvements as the only change made by learned District Judge was on the
annuity factor based on the decision of this Court.
CRP No.784/2008
2
3. So far as compensation for diminished land value is concerned,
respondent produced Ext.A1, sale deed dated 13.12.1996 to show the land
value. In that sale deed land value is stated as Rupees three lakhs for 15 cents.
Advocate Commissioner who inspected the property was examined as PW5.
Ext.A1, sale deed is dated 13.12.1996 while the tree cutting was some time in
the year 1998. Property mentioned in Ext.A1 is about 400 metres away from
petition schedule property. It has came in evidence that Ext.A1, property has
more local importance than petition schedule property. In that circumstances
learned District Judge was not inclined to accept value of property shown in
Ext.A1 as value of the petition schedule property. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances land value was fixed as Rs.4,000/- per cent.
4. Considering the extent of damage caused to the property on
account of drawal of line, 40% of the land value has been taken as basis for
fixing compensation for 10.176 cents and for the area apart from clearance
area, -18.824 cents, 15% of the land value has been taken as basis for fixing
compensation. Accordingly compensation has been awarded for diminished
land value. It cannot be disputed that on account of drawal of 220 KV line
respondent is not able to cultivate permanent crops and construct building in
CRP No.784/2008
3
the land affected. Having regard to the circumstances stated I do not find reason
to think that compensation awarded for diminished land value is excessive. As
such the order under challenge does not call for interference.
Resultantly revision fails. It is dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks