Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL MONDAY, THE26H DAY OF MAY20145TH JYAISHTA, 1936 CRP.No. 67 of 2008 ( ) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
IN OP (ELE) NO. 162/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA DATED0704-2007 REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NANGIARKULANGARA P.O., HARIPAD. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS: --------------------------- 1. PENNAMMA THOMAS, W/O.LATE K.J.THOMAS, MADASSERIL HOUSE, CHETTIKULANGARA P.O., KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK.
2. JESSY, D/O.PENNAMMA THOMAS, -DO- 3. MATHEW, S/O.K.J.THOMAS, -DO- 4. LEELAMMA, D/O.PENNAMMA THOMAS, -DO- 5. PONNUSE, S/O.K.J.THOMAS, -DO- 6. JAMES, S/O.K.J.THOMAS, -DO- 7. ANNAMMA, D/O.PENNAMMA THOMAS, -DO- 8. SUSI, D/O.PENNAMMA THOMAS, -DO- R1 BY ADV. SRI.J.
OM PRAKASH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2605-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HARILAL, J.
------------------------------------------------------ C.R.P. No.67 of 2008-B ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of May, 2014 ORDER
The revision petitioner is the respondent in O.P. (EA) No.162/03 on the files of the Additional District Court-I, Mavelikkara. The respondents herein have filed the above petition under Secs.10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 51 of the Electricity Act, 1910, claiming additional compensation towards cutting of trees and diminution of the land value. The petitioner/Company has drawn 220 KV electric transmission line from Kayamkulam to Pallom Village which passes through the property owned by the respondents herein in Kannamangalam Village. The petitioner has awarded a compensation C.R.P. No.67 of 2008 -:
2. :- of `30,166/- only. According to the respondents, the said amount was inadequate and disproportionate with the actual damages which they have sustained by cutting of trees and drawing electric transmission lines. The petitioner resisted the claim for enhanced compensation contending that the compensation has been fixed on the basis of the detailed valuation statement and mahazar prepared by the Revenue Officials. The competent officers have enumerated the number of trees, assessed the age of the trees and annual yield correctly. After considering the rival contentions, the court below has granted an amount of `24,486/- as additional compensation for the damages sustained to the respondents.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount granted as additional compensation is excessive and disproportionate with the actual damages caused to the respondents by cutting of the trees and drawing of the lines. The respondents are not entitled to get any amount as additional compensation as the competent officers of the C.R.P. No.67 of 2008 -:
3. :- petitioner had properly assessed the number of trees, annual yield from each tree and calculated the annual income by capitalization method. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the amount granted as additional compensation for the cutting of the trees.
3. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that the petitioner has given compensation for cutting of trees on the basis of capitalization method. But it is also seen that for capitalization, annuity has been taken at 10%. But in Kumba Amma v. KSEB (2000 (1) KLT542, this Court held that 5% annuity has to be taken instead of 10%. In the light of the above decision, the court below reduced the percentage of annuity from 10% to 5%. I am of the opinion that 5% annuity fixed by the court below in view of the decision of this Court is just and proper and there is no reason to interfere with the said finding. Hence the compensation determined for the damages caused by cutting of trees is just and proper.
4. Coming to the diminution of the land value, the C.R.P. No.67 of 2008 -:
4. :- learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the court below erred in fixing the rate of diminution of the land value at 20% taking into consideration of the fact that the property of the respondents is an agricultural land. Similarly, the market value fixed by the court per cent is also excessive. But, going by the impugned order, it is seen that the respondents had claimed `25,000/- per cent. But it true that no evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents to prove the said fact. The court below observed that though the respondents' claim in the petition that the property is situated by the side of a public road, in an important commercial and industrial area, no acceptable evidence had been adduced on the side of the respondents to prove the same. The court cannot decline the right to get compensation for diminution of the land value as injurious affection caused by the drawing of lines is an admitted fact approved by the Apex Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT1(SC)]. The total extent of the property is 27 cents and it is admitted that the electric transmission line had been C.R.P. No.67 of 2008 -:
5. :- drawn through the said property. In view of the admitted facts, the court below has taken 1/3rd of the total extent as affected area and fixed the market value at `5,000/- per cent only. I am of the opinion that the fixation of market value and percentage of diminution of the land value are just and proper. There is no reason to interfere with the amount granted for diminution of the land value also. The revision petition is devoid of merits. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge