Kerala High Court
Leela Sivasankaran Nair vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd on 31 October, 2012
Author: K.Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/9TH KARTHIKA 1934
CRP.No. 536 of 2007 (D)
-----------------------
OPELE.664/2002 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA.
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER;:
----------------------------------
LEELA SIVASANKARAN NAIR, AGED 40 YEARS,
D/O.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, NIKARTHIL HOUSE
CHERUTHANA VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, HARIPAD.
BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH
RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER:
------------------------------
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, LOCAL OFFICE AT
NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPPAD
BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 31-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
kvr/
K.VINOD CHANDRAN,J
-----------------------------------
C.R.P.NO. 536 of 2007
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of October, 2012
O R D E R
The petitioner was a claimant before the Court below, who sought enhanced compensation under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 51 of the Electricity Act, 1910. The petitioner was the owner in possession of 12 cents in Survey Number 285/3 of Cheruthana Village. Both yielding and non- yielding trees in the property were felled for the purpose of drawing 220 KV electricity transmission line over the property. The petitioner, aggrieved with the meagre compensation granted, filed the petition before the lower court for enhanced compensation with respect to the value of the trees felled. The petitioner also claimed compensation for diminution in land value, which was rejected by the respondent corporation as also the Court below.
2. For facilitating the drawing of electric lines, 2 yielding Coconut trees and 3 yielding Arecanut trees were cut from the property. The detailed valuation statement filed by the Board showed that the annuity adopted was at the rate of 10%. The Court below found that the annuity has to be adopted at the rate of 5% following a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Kumba Amma v. Kerala C.R.P.NO. 536 of 2007 2 State Electricity Board 2000 (1) KLT 542 (F.B). The Full Bench decision in Kumba Amma's case (supra) has been over ruled by the Honourable Supreme Court in KSEB v. Livisha 2007 (6) SCC 792. In Livisha (supra), the Supreme Court found that the adoption of 5% annuity on a fixed basis is improper, however, it has been held that annuity has to be adopted looking into the facts and circumstances of each case. Even going by the Supreme Court judgment, it is evident that the lower court has looked at the facts and circumstances of the case to decide the compensation, to be awarded, for value of the trees felled in the property. Looking at the entire facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,235/- granted by the Court below is adequate and does not require any further enhancement.
3. The learned counsel however, strenuously urged that the petitioner is entitled to compensation for diminution in land value. Looking at the order of the Court below, it is seen that the petitioner has not produced any material either to determine the land value or compute the area which has been affected injuriously. Going by the fact that only 2 yielding Coconut trees and 3 yielding Arecanut trees were cut to facilitate drawing an electric line, the denial of compensation for diminution in land value cannot at all be assailed. C.R.P.NO. 536 of 2007 3 In such circumstances, this Court finds that there is absolutely no material on record to grant any compensation with respect to the diminution in land value.
Civil Revision Petition is found to be devoid of merit and, accordingly, stands dismissed.
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. To Judge LSN