IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 328 of 2008()
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THOMAS MATHEW, SIBI VILLA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
For Respondent :SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :03/10/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CR.P. No. 328 OF 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008
O R D E R
In this revision filed under Section 115 CPC, the Power Grid
Corporation of India Ltd. challenges the order dated 22.06.08 passed
by the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha in OP(EA) No.315/02.
2. For the drawal of a 220 KV Kayamkulam-Edamon electric
line, the Corporation cut and removed fruit bearing and other trees
from the property of the respondent situated in Survey Nos.160/15,
161/29 and 161/30 of Kattanam Village. A sum of Rs.21,690/- was
awarded by the Corporation as compensation for the trees cut by
them. No compensation by way of diminution in land value was
awarded. Dissatisfied with the compensation paid by the
Corporation, the respondent filed the above Original Petition before
the District Court. As per the impugned order, the learned District
Judge awarded a sum of Rs.13,038/- as enhanced compensation for
the trees cut fixing 5% annuity by applying Kumba Amma V.
K.S.E.B [2000(1) KLT 542]. For the diminution in land value, the
learned District Judge fixed a sum of Rs.9,600/- as market value per
CRP 328/08
-:2:-
cent and took 30% as the diminution in land value. Thus a total sum
of Rs.22,638/- was awarded as enhanced compensation. It is the
said award which is assailed in this revision.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing
the impugned order, I do not find any good ground for interference
with the order passed by the learned District Judge who has applied
the principles correctly. The quantum of enhancement is negligible,
having regard to the fact that as much as 8 cents of land belonging to
the respondent has been treated as the affected area. This Revision
Petition is accordingly dismissed.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
ttb