IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 1066 of 2005()
1. V.BALAKRISHNAN, KANNIMELEZHIKATHU VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
For Respondent :S.C.FOR K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :31/01/2008
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
--------------------------------------------
C.R.P. NO. 1066 OF 2005 E
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st January, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner filed O.P.(Ele) No.1 of 1994, on the file of the Court
of the Additional District Judge, Kollam, claiming additional
compensation, dissatisfied with the award of compensation by the Kerala
State Electricity Board. The court below held that the petitioner is entitled
to an additional compensation of Rs.13,455/- on account of diminution in
land value. However, the court below held that the petitioner is not
entitled to any additional compensation for the trees cut and removed.
Challenging the order passed by the court below, the petitioner filed
C.R.P.No.457 of 2003. That Revision was partly allowed, setting aside
that part of the order passed by the court below holding that the petitioner
is not entitled to any additional compensation for the trees cut and
removed. However, the revisional court did not interfere with the finding
of the court below as regards the compensation on account of diminution
in land value.
2. After remand, the court below passed the order dated
30.6.2005, which is under challenge in this Revision, holding that the
petitioner is not entitled to any additional compensation on account of the
trees cut.
C.R.P. NO.1066 OF 2005 E
:: 2 ::
3. The petitioner owns 37 cents of land. For drawing overhead
electric transmission line, four yielding coconut trees aged 25 years, three
coconut trees aged seven years and one coconut tree aged ten years
were cut and removed from his property. Compensation of Rs.8,730/-
was granted to the petitioner on account of the trees cut. The petitioner
claimed a sum of Rs.One lakh for the coconut trees aged 25 years,
Rs.12,000/- for the coconut trees aged ten years and Rs.80,000/- for the
coconut trees aged seven years. The total additional compensation
claimed by the petitioner was Rs.1,89,270/-. The petitioner relied on the
Commissioner’s report wherein the nature of yielding trees were noted
after a lapse of several years from the date of cutting. The court below
held that the Commissioner’s report cannot be made the basis for
computation of compensation payable. The state of affairs as on the date
of cutting being relevant, the court below thought that the data supplied in
the Commissioner’s report are not quite relevant. The court below took
note of the fact that, even according to the petitioner, the land value would
be Rs.3,000/- per cent and on that basis, if the value of the entire affected
area of 14 cents is taken into account, it would be only Rs.42,000/-. In
such circumstances, the court below held that the amount claimed by the
petitioner is exorbitant.
C.R.P. NO.1066 OF 2005 E
:: 3 ::
4. The court below considered the evidence in the case and the
method of calculation adopted by the Board. It was held that market
value was arrived at by the Board by collecting data from the Coconut
Development Board. At the time of cutting of trees, a mahazar was
prepared and the details regarding number and age of the trees and the
average yield etc. were mentioned in the mahazar. The mahazar was
served on the petitioner, but he did not raise any objection in respect of
the facts stated in the mahazar. The court below found that the Board
has taken into account the annuity method and fixed the value of the trees
properly. It was held that the petitioner is not entitled to any additional
compensation on account of the trees cut. I agree with the reasoning and
conclusion arrived at by the court below. It cannot be said that the court
below was not justified in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any
additional compensation. Relevant facts were taken note of and the court
below was fully justified in holding that the claim made by the petitioner
was excessive, exorbitant and imaginary.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/