Kerala High Court
Revision vs By Advs.Sri. Asok M.Cheriyan on 23 August, 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/14TH PHALGUNA 1934
CRP.No. 459 of 2008 ( )
-----------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP (ELE).88/1999 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT &
ADDL.MACT,PALAKKAD DATED 23-08-2005
REVISION PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT
-----------------------------------------------------------
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
--------------------------------------------------
1. * GANGADHARAN, S/O. VELU, AGED 72 YEARS,
KANHINANGAD HOUSE, POST - MANNANNUR, VIA.
KAVALAPPARA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (*expired)
ADDITIONAL R2 TO 6 IMPLEADED
2. PADMAVATHY W/O GANGADHARAN,
KANHINANGAD HOUSE, POST - MANNANNUR, VIA.
KAVALAPPARA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
3. PAMEELAKUMARI, D/O - DO- DO
4. DEV ADASAN, S/O - DO - DO
5. SUGATHAKUMARI D/O -DO- DO
6. VELUKUTTY S/O - DO - DO
ALL RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE DECEASED FIRST RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 10.8.12 IN I.A.612/2012
IN CRP 459/2008.
R2,R3,R5 & 6 BY ADV. SRI.O.P.NANDAKUMAR
R2,R3,R5 & 6 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.AJAI KUMAR
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-03-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
SKV
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
C.R.P No.459 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2013
ORDER
Revision petitioner is the Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'. Challenge is against the order passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Palakkad in a proceeding under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Section 51 of the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act. Respondent, who is hereinafter referred to as claimant, filing an original petition sought for enhanced compensation towards loss suffered by him on account of the drawing of overhead lines through his property by the Board. Appreciating the materials tendered in the proceedings learned Additional District Judge under the impugned order granted the claimant enhanced compensation of Rs.31,291/- allowing him to realise such sum with 6% interest from the date of cutting of trees till realization. That order is challenged by the Board contending that it is C.R.P No.459/2008 2 excessive and unreasonable.
2. Going through the order of learned District Judge, it is seen that enhanced compensation has been awarded under two heads. Towards cutting down and removal of eight coconut trees to facilitate the drawing of electric lines following the principles laid down by this court in "Kumba Amma v K.S.E.B" (2001 KLT 542) the learned District Judge re-assessed the compensation payable taking 5% annuity return with reference to the yield of trees and also its age. On that basis the claimant was found entitled to additional compensation of Rs.12,991/- towards the loss suffered by cutting of trees. Claimant has also set forth another claim towards diminution of land value and injurious affectation caused, on account of the drawing of overhead lines through his property. Report collected from an Advocate Commissioner, after local inspection, indicated that an extent of 25.5 cents of land of petitioner had been injuriously affected by the overhead lines drawn. Though the claimant claimed centage calue of Rs.20,000/-, learned District Judge, holding that reasonable price of land would come only to Rs.3,000/- per cent, C.R.P No.459/2008 3 has taken a view that 20% of the aforesaid 25.5 cents of land suffered diminution in land value on account of the lines drawn. In that view of the matter, assessing compensation payable thereunder, a sum of Rs.18,300/- was awarded. Thus, a total sum of Rs.31,291/- was awarded as enhanced compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the Board banking upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in "K.S.E.B v Livisha & Others"
(2007(30 KLT 1) contended that learned District Judge has gone wrong in applying the principles laid down by this court in Kumba Amma's case. True, in Livisha's case the Apex Court has held that fixation of compensation on the basis of annuity return as held in Kumba Amma's case cannot be a safe method. However, having regard to the facts presented in the case that there is no dispute that nine yielding coconut trees had been cut down from the property of petitioner to facilitate the drawing of lines, and such lines were drawn for transmission of 220 KV lines, at this stage, I find no interference with the order passed by the learned District Judge fixing additional enhanced compensation of Rs.12,991/- towards the value of the trees cut down is called for. So far as the C.R.P No.459/2008 4 diminution of land value, compensation fixed and awarded by the learned District Judge has to be appreciated in the backdrop that not the area underneath the lines drawn alone is affected when overhead lines for transmission of 220 KV are drawn. Sufficient clear spaces on both sides of lines has to be provided for safety purposes. So much so, it does not need any expertise to hold that the claimant will be prevented from cultivating any high growing trees in any area underneath the overhead lines drawn by the Board. That also taken note of, I find, no interference with the order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is called for. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed.
vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE