IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 777 of 2004()
1. T.M.HAMEED,
... Petitioner
2. T.M.MUSTHAFA,
3. T.M.RASHEED,
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ESM.KABEER
For Respondent :SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :10/01/2008
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
...................................................................................
C.R.P. No. 777 OF 2004
...................................................................................
Dated this the 10th January, 2008
O R D E R
For drawing 220 K.V. electric line, several trees in the property belonging to the
petitioners were cut. 56 coconut trees, 39 teak trees, 5 jack trees and 99 pepper-vines
were among the trees and plants cut and removed. The total extent of the property
belonging to the petitioners is 1 acre and 42.50 cents . The Commissioner appointed
by the court assessed that the area affected would be 68 cents and 976 Sq. links .
This does not appear to have been disputed by both the sides. The Commissioner has
reported that the property in question is located about 300 feet away from
Perumbavoor- Muvattupuzha National Highway and 300 feet away from Ambalapady-
Velloor road. Another road also passes about 300 feet away from the property. The
Commissioner has also stated that there is a pocket road leading to the property in
question and that the petitioners have vehicular access to the property.
2. As regards the fertility of the land, the Commissioner has reported that it is a
very fertile land. Rubber plantations are there nearby. The Commissioner has noted
that there are two residential buildings in the property . In paragraph 2 of the report, it
is stated thus:
“At the time of inspection electric line was not drawn. The proposed
electric line passes through the centre of the property. The extent of the
land in which trees were cut and removed in the petitioners’ property is
approximately 68 cents 376 square links.”
In paragraph 3 of the report, it is stated as follows:
“The respondent has not yet drawn the electric lines, but they fixed the
C.R.P. No. 777 OF 2004
2
alignment of the land by removing trees. From the said alignment it
may presume that the substantial portion of residential building of the
3rd petitioner will come within the affected area. The residential
building of the petitioner 1 and 2 lies about 10 feet away from the
affected area.”
3. The Commissioner has assessed that the average yield of the coconut trees
would be 240 coconuts per year. The Board has assessed the yield at the rate of 360
coconuts per year. The court below came to the conclusion that the Board has given a
reasonable value for the yielding trees. Similarly, for arecanut, the court below
accepted the valuation given by the Board.
4. The main contention put forward by the revision petitioner is that the court
below did not properly consider the diminution of the land value due to the drawal of
the electric line. The existence of residential buildings and how the drawal of the line
has affected the petitioners’ land was not property considered by the court below, it is
contended. It is true that the Commissioner’s report has been referred to by the court
below. The petitioners had claimed land value at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per cent. The
court below held that there is no evidence to arrive at that figure and the value of the
land was fixed at Rs.5,000/- per cent. Taking 30% as diminution of land value, the
compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per cent . Thus a total sum of Rs.
1,03,464/- was arrived at by the court below as additional compensation to be
awarded .
5. I am of the view that the court below was right in holding that the Board has
awarded reasonable compensation in so far as the yielding trees cut and removed for
C.R.P. No. 777 OF 2004
3
drawing the line. Even the yield assessed by the Commissioner is lower than the yield
fixed by the Board . It cannot be said that the court below was wrong in accepting the
valuation of the Board in this regard. The Board had granted a total compensation of
Rs.2,80,766/-. Taking into account all these facts and circumstances , I am not inclined
to interfere with the judgment of the court below in so far as it relates to the valuation
of the trees cut and removed.
6. However, as regards the compensation awarded for diminution of land value,
I am of the view that the court below has not properly considered the materials placed
before it including the Commissioner’s report . The value of the land fixed at Rs. 5,000/-
per cent is also too low. In K.S.E.B. vs. Livisha [2007 (3) K.L.T. 1 (SC) ], the
Supreme Court held as follows:
“The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity
line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to
whether the high voltage line passes over a small track of land or
through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our
opinion would be determinative. The value of the land would also be a
relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, in a given situation
may lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose for
which the same was meant to be used. “
For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. The order
of the court below , in so far as it relates to compensation for diminution of land value,
is set aside, and the case is remanded to the court below for fresh disposal only on the
question as to what compensation should be paid to the petitioners on the ground of
C.R.P. No. 777 OF 2004
4
diminution of land value. The enhanced compensation to be paid to the petitioners shall
be re-fixed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. No
order as to costs.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk