Kerala High Court
Kerala State Electricity Board vs K.R.Lalan on 2 November, 2009
Author: S.S.Satheesachandran
Bench: S.S.Satheesachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 624 of 2008()
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.R.LALAN,S/O.RAGHAVAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :02/11/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
C.R.P.NO.624 OF 2008 (E)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009
O R D E R
The revision is directed against the order dated 23.2.2008 in O.P.(Ele.)No.149 of 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha. Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the 'Board' is the revision petitioner. The above original petition was filed by the respondent seeking enhanced compensation towards loss and damages caused by the drawing of overhead lines through his property by the Board. A sum of Rs.830/- was awarded by the Board to the claimant as compensation, but, it was challenged as inadequate and unreasonable by the claimant. The respondent in the O.P., Board contended that taking into consideration all relevant aspects, adequate compensation had been paid to the claimant. Claimant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on his side. No oral evidence was tendered by the Board, but, a valuation statement CRP.624/08 2 prepared for assessing the compensation was exhibited as Ext.B1. The learned District Judge, after hearing the counsel on both sides and appreciating the materials produced, arrived at the conclusion that no enhancement towards the trees cut and removed was warranted for as adequate compensation of Rs.830/- had been paid for cutting and removing two yielding trees, a mango tree and a jack fruit tree. The claimant had raised a claim for injurious affectation of his land contending that the overhead lines had been drawn through the middle of his property. The materials produced in the case disclosed that the claimant had only a small plot having the extent of 7 cents. It was further disclosed that the line passed through one side of the property and not through its middle as canvassed by the claimant. The learned District Judge, appreciating the materials, found that two cents of the property out of the total extent of 7 cents had been injuriously affected and suffered diminution of its land value by the drawing of overhead lines by the Board. It is seen that the lines had been drawn for the purpose of drawing 110 KV high tension line for the Aroor-Kalamassery line of the Board. Land CRP.624/08 3 value in the vicinity was claimed at the rate of Rs.49,000/- per cent by the claimant producing a copy of registered sale deed of a property situated nearby. Examining that document with reference to the relevant aspects involved, the learned District Judge formed the opinion that the property covered under that document has no comparison with that of the claimant. On assessing all the aspects involved, the learned District Judge fixed the market value of the land of the claimant at Rs.20,000/- per cent. Noticing that 110 KV line had been drawn atleast through the side of the property of a small plot injurious affectation was fixed at 30% in respect of two cents affected by the drawing of the overhead lines. With reference to the market value fixed at Rs.20,000/- and injurious affectation at 30% for two cents, compensation of Rs.12,000/- was awarded. Assessment so made towards injurious affection of the land is challenged by the Board as excessive and unreasonable. I do not find any impropriety or illegality, leave alone any jurisdictional infirmity in the assessment made by the learned District Judge in the awarding of the compensation towards the injurious affectation of the land of CRP.624/08 4 the claimant. Overhead lines of 110 KV line were drawn atleast over one side of the small plot having an extent of 7 cents belonging to the claimant, and when that be so, compensation awarded holding that two cents of such land had been affected to the extent of 30% diminishing its market value to that extent can only be treated as just and reasonable. There is no merit in the revision, and it is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp