Kerala High Court
Kerala State Electricity Board vs Sri.V.G.Mohanlal (Died) on 15 March, 2010
Author: S.S.Satheesachandran
Bench: S.S.Satheesachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 472 of 2007()
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SRI.V.G.MOHANLAL (DIED),
... Respondent
2. ADDL.2. SUDHEERSH V.M., S/O.MOHANLAL,
3. ADDL.3. SUJA, D/O. MOHANLAL,
4. ADDL.4. SMITHA, D/O.MOHANLAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :15/03/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J
-------------------------------------
C.R.P No.472 OF 2007
--------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of March 2010
ORDER
Revision is directed against the order dated 17.12.2005 in O.P(Ele.) No.218 of 2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc-II), Ernakulam. The above O.P was filed by the respondent herein seeking enhanced compensation for the loss and damages sustained on account of the cutting down of a good number of trees from his property for the drawing of electric line through that property by the Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board. Towards compensation for the loss sustained by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, the Board assessed and paid a compensation of Rs.24,267/-. Dissatisfied with the compensation as inadequate and insufficient, the claimant filed the above O.P seeking enhanced compensation. The learned District Judge reevaluating the compensation in accordance with the guidelines and principles applicable under law awarded the claimant enhanced compensation of Rs.25,389/-. That order passed in the above O.P is challenged by the Board under this revision.
2. Though notice was issued on the petition moved with the revision to condone the delay, service has not been C.R.P No.472 OF 2007 Page numbers effected on the claimant so far. Having regard to the fact that the revision has been filed as early in 2007, merit of the revision against the impugned order was considered to examine whether further opportunity should be provided to the Board to take out notice.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the Board. The main objection canvassed by the counsel is that no material or data was furnished by the claimant to claim enhanced compensation at least in respect of the injury suffered over his land by drawing of the line. Towards diminution of land value by drawing of the line, the court below has awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/- without any data is the grievance espoused by the learned counsel to contend that there is serious jurisdictional infirmity in the order impugned. Perusing the impugned order, I find that the court below has reevaluated the compensation with respect to the trees cut and removed from the property of the claimant adopting annuity return of 5% in the place of annuity return of 10% followed by the Board. The court below, no doubt, has followed the guidelines and principles given in "K.S.E.B v Kumba Amma" (2000(1) KLT 542) in fixing the compensation for the trees cut down adopting 5% annuity return. No serious challenge was made by the counsel in respect of such revaluation made as to the compensation payable for the trees cut down from C.R.P No.472 OF 2007 Page numbers the property of the claimant. As already indicated, the grievance was against the awarding of Rs.7,500/- towards the diminution of land value. True, no material was placed before the court below by the claimant to sustain that claim. But it is seen from the impugned order that the lines have been drawn by the Board to facilitate the drawing of 110 KV electric line. Needless to point out, in the drawing of 110KV or 220 KV electric lines, apart from the area covered underneath the lines, sufficient area on both sides which is often called as clearing area has to be provided to avoid any mishap and also to ensure free flow of energy. So much so, the claimant, the land owner, will be prevented from making use of the area not only underneath the line but also which come within the clearing area as well. True, he can have some cultivation which do not reach much height underneath the area covered by the line. But it has to be taken note that no construction can be put up nor any high yielding tree be grown under that area. Practically the utility of the land so far as the land lord concerned is seriously jeopardised by the drawing of 110 KV line through his property at least over the area coming underneath those lines. The court below has taken note the above circumstance as well with reference to the trees cut and removed from his property to determine the compensation payable towards diminution of land value. A sum of Rs.24,267/-
C.R.P No.472 OF 2007 Page numbers had been awarded by the Board itself for the trees cut down from the property of the claimant, which gives an indication of the area covered by those trees. From the order, it is seen, more than 20 trees were cut down from the property of the claimant and when that be the case, the sum of Rs.7,500/- fixed towards diminution of land value by the court cannot be treated as excessive or unreasonable. There is no merit in the revision, and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv