Kerala High Court
Paulo Jose Allias V.P.Joseph vs K.S.E.B. Repesented By The Secretary on 7 November, 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 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/16TH KARTHIKA 1934
CRP.No. 168 of 2006 ( B )
-----------------------
EOP.42/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER.:
----------------------------------
PAULO JOSE ALLIAS V.P.JOSEPH,
VADAKKUMCHERI HOUSE, KATTATHURUTHU, VADAKKEKKARA
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN.
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
K.S.E.B. REPESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
amk
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J
--------------------------------------------------
C.R.P.No.168 OF 2006
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of November, 2012.
O R D E R
The revision petitioner was the claimant before the court below. The petitioner was the owner of a property comprised in Survey No.236/14 of Vadakkekara Village, from which yielding and non yielding coconut trees as also other trees were felled, for the purpose of facilitating the drawing of electricity lines. The petitioner claimed that the compensation awarded by the Board is meager and unreasonable and that he is entitled to enhanced compensation with respect to the value of trees as also the diminution in land value.
2. The respondent Board contended that the line drawn over the property was only a 33 KV single circuit line from North Paravur sub station to Vadakkekara sub station and that there was absolutely nothing on record to substantiate the claim of injurious effect on the land. No Commission was taken out and it is not clear as to how the property was injuriously affected. According to the respondent Board, C.R.P.No.168 OF 2006 2 the compensation awarded with respect to the value of trees felled in the property was adequate and reasonable.
3. The compensation granted with respect to value of trees felled was enhanced after accepting the revised valuation statement filed by the claimant. The court adopted 5% annuity in awarding compensation for the felled trees. It is submitted on behalf of the counsel for the respondent Board that the adoption of 5% annuity, though upheld by the Full Bench decision of this court in Kumba Amma Vs. K.S.E.B (2000(1) KLT 542), the said decision has been over ruled by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in K.S.E.B Vs. Livisha (2007(6) SCC 792). The Supreme Court has only laid down that though the fixed percentage as laid down by Kumba Amma is not to be taken, the facts and circumstances of each case has to be looked into while giving enhanced compensation. In any event there is no challenge by the Board against the enhanced compensation awarded by the court below.
C.R.P.No.168 OF 2006 3
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also noticing the commercial value of the yield of the trees cut from the property, this Court is of the opinion that the 5% annuity adopted and the enhanced compensation granted for the value of trees felled in the property is adequate and cannot at all be said to be unreasonable or low.
5. With respect to the claim of diminution in land value, the petitioner claimed that 50 cents of land has been rendered useless. He claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as lump sum compensation for the diminution in land value. There was absolutely no evidence as to the land value in the locality nor was a commission taken out to ascertain the injurious effect. The claim of additional compensation remained in the pleadings and was not substantiated before court. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there can be no grant of compensation with respect to diminution in land value, by this Court sitting in revisional jurisdiction of the order of the lower court. C.R.P.No.168 OF 2006 4
6. However the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the interest granted at 9% per annum was confined to the additional compensation. The initial award amounts also were satisfied at a latter date. When the additional compensation was mulcted with liability of interest from the date of felling of trees, definitely the initial award also has to be mulcted with such liability, especially in the context of unreasonable delay having occurred. This Court has time and again held that the compensation is for the injury caused to the property and the same relates back to the date of felling of trees. The additional compensation as also the initial award shall carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of felling of trees till actual payment. The civil revision petition is partly allowed, modifying the interest liability but confirming all other aspects.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN,
amk JUDGE.