IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 618 of 2008()
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, POWER GRID
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SREEDEVI AMMA,W/O.LATE V.SUKUMARAN NAIR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
For Respondent :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :17/02/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
C.R.P.NO.618 OF 2008 ()
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010
O R D E R
Revision is directed against the order dated 18.10.2006
in O.P.(EA.).No.98 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Alappuzha. The respondent, hereinafter
referred to as the ‘claimant’ feeling aggrieved by the
compensation adjudged and paid by the revision petitioner,
hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’, filed the above
original petition seeking enhanced compensation for the trees
cut and removed and damages caused to her property by the
drawing of overhead lines through that property. The
Corporation, for the purpose of drawing Kayamkulam-Edamon
220 KV electric transmission line, cut and removed 140
yielding rubber trees from the property of the claimant, which
has an extent of one acre and ten cents. A sum of
Rs.1,55,835/- was awarded to the claimant as compensation
for the loss caused by the drawing of the overhead lines.
Aggrieved by the compensation awarded, the claimant sought
CRP.618/08 2
for enhanced compensation. Corporation resisted that claim
contending that just and reasonable compensation had been
paid. Previously, the court below, after conducting enquiry,
had passed an award fixing a total compensation of
Rs.2,35,834/-. Challenging that award as excessive, the
Corporation had filed a revision before this Court. The
revision was allowed and the case was remanded for fresh
consideration. Pursuant to such remission, both parties
adduced further evidence. After considering the materials
produced and hearing the counsel on both sides, a revised
order was passed by the court below awarding the enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,41,386/- directing the Corporation to
pay such sum with 6% interest per annum from the date of
cutting of trees till realisation. Compensation so fixed and
awarded by the court below is challenged in this revision.
2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Compensation
awarded is excessive and unreasonable, and further, there
was no scientific assessment with reference to the relevant
factors in adjudging the compensation, is the submission of
CRP.618/08 3
the learned counsel for the Corporation. On the other hand,
the learned counsel for the claimant submitted no interference
with the award passed by the court below is warranted as
there is nothing to show that the adjudging of the
compensation suffer from any infirmity. Admittedly, 140
yielding rubber tress and three yielding coconut trees had
been cut and removed to facilitate the drawing of 220 KV
electric transmission lines over the property of the claimant.
The Corporation has assessed compensation for the trees cut
and removed on the basis of annuity return of 10%, which
time and again has been found not proper and correct under a
series of judicial pronouncements rendered by this Court.
Though the decision rendered by this Court in Kumba Amma
v. K.S.E.B (2000 (1) KLT 542 (FB)) holding that the
annuity return in respect of the loss arising from the cutting
and removing of the trees has to be assessed with reference to
5% annuity return stands practically negatived and not a
correct principle by the decision rendered by the apex court in
K.S.E.B. v. Livisha ((2007) 6 SCC 792). I have to take
note that in the present case, the revised order had been
CRP.618/08 4
passed on the basis of the directions issued by this Court by
the remand order, after setting aside the previous order of the
court below. The trees were cut and removed at least prior to
2000 and remitting the case again for reassessment of the
compensation with reference to the principles laid down in
Livisha’s case, in my view, is likely to cause much hardship
and irreparable injury to both sides. Such a course need be
followed only if it is seen that the compensation adjudged by
the court is excessive and unreasonable, or suffered from any
serious infirmity. What I notice is that the court below has
awarded only an enhanced compensation of Rs.81,386/-
towards the compensation for the trees cut and removed on
refixing such compensation with reference to 5% annuity
return. Needless to point out, in the matter of fixing
compensation, certain amount of arbitrariness cannot at all be
ruled out. It is practically impossible to determine with
precision the compensation payable towards the trees cut and
removed, whether it be for drawing of the lines or for any
other purpose. An yield of a tree differ from one tree to
another. Only some average formula alone is possible in fixing
CRP.618/08 5
the compensation. In the given facts of the case, I find that
the fixation of the enhanced compensation at Rs.81,386/- by
the court below cannot be stated to be improper or incorrect.
Then the only question that is to be looked into is whether the
award of compensation made towards the diminution of land
value by the court below calls for any interference.
Admittedly, the lines drawn through the property were 220 KV
transmission lines. Sufficient clearance of both sides of the
line was necessary to avoid any mishap and also for
safeguarding the free flow of energy through those lines.
When clearance to be provided from such lines is taken note
of it has to be held that the claimant will be prevented from
making use of substantial portion of her land in the manner
she wanted. It is further noticed that the land was used as a
rubber plantation, and so much so, it may not be possible for
the claimant to make use of it even for any profitable
agricultural purpose in the immediate future. True, the
claimant can have some sort of cultivation underneath the
area covered by the lines, but, the fertility of the land which
had been previously rubber plantation should also be taken
CRP.618/08 6
into consideration to assess how far it had been injuriously
affected by the drawing of the line. The court below has held
that 50 cents of land out of one acre ten cents of the property
of the claimant had been injuriously affected at least to the
extent of 30%. Though the land value of Rs.50,000/- was
claimed by the claimant, the court below had fixed the land
value only at Rs.4,000/- per cent. Injurious affectation over
the land was held to be at 30% and in that view, compensation
towards diminution of land value was fixed. A sum of
Rs.60,000/- has been awarded towards the diminution of the
land value. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the
assessment so made and the compensation awarded for
injurious affection of the land especially where it is seen that
sufficient clearing area was required when a 220 KV lines are
drawn over a property. The learned counsel for the
Corporation submitted that the interest awarded from the date
of cutting till realisation require to be modified as from the
date of petition. Corporation has no case that it has paid any
interest on the amount already paid from the date of cutting of
the trees. So much so, in modification of the order of the
CRP.618/08 7
court below with respect to the awarding of interest, there will
be an order that the claimant will be entitled to claim interest
on the amount at Rs.1,55,835/- paid by the Corporation from
the date of cutting of the trees till such payment and on
enhanced compensation by the court form the date of petition
till date of realisation at the rate of 6% interest per annum.
Revision is closed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp