Kerala High Court
Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd vs K.P.Muhammed on 23 April, 2024
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946
CRP NO. 312 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2018 IN OPELE
NO.195 OF 2015 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - II, MANJERI
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV N.SATHEESH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 K.P.MUHAMMED
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMEDALI, THEKKATH HOUSE, CHEMRAKKATTOOR,
NEAR I.T.I, CHEMBAPARAMBU ROAD, AREACODE,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 AYISHAKUTTY,
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O.K.P.MUHAMMED, THEKKATH HOUSE,
CHEMRAKKATTOOR, NEAR I.T.I, CHEMBAPARAMBU ROAD,
AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ
OTHER PRESENT:
SC FOR KSEB B.PREMOD
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.03.2024, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP No.312 of 2020
-2-
ORDER
Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2024 The Kerala State Electricity Board is aggrieved by the enhanced compensation awarded towards diminution of land value due to the drawing of 110 KV transmission line over the respondents' property. The total extent of the property is 14 cents and it contained various yielding trees. The respondents' residential house is also situated in that property. Even though the respondents claimed compensation for the loss sustained due to the felling of trees of various types, the court below refused to grant any compensation under that head since the respondents had failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the claim. At the same time, the compensation for loss sustained due to diminution of land value was granted, based on the findings in the report submitted by the Advocate CRP No.312 of 2020 -3- Commissioner and other relevant factors.
2. Although learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the compensation awarded is far in excess of the damage/loss sustained, having carefully scrutinized the impugned order, I find that all relevant factors were taken into consideration by the court below for arriving at the just compensation payable.
3. For fixing the quantum of compensation payable towards diminution of land value, the court below mainly relied on the finding of the Advocate Commissioner that the land value in that area would be around Rs.1,00,000/-. The fact that the property is only 14 cents and the high tension lines are passing through the middle of the property and above the roof of the residential house was also taken into consideration. The court below also noted that the property is situated in a developed area with all modern conveniences. As such, the relevant CRP No.312 of 2020 -4- factors, as observed in KSEB v. Livisha [(2007) 6 SCC 792] are seen to have been considered. Hence, the challenge against the impugned order on the ground that the land value was fixed without any documentary evidence and grant of 50% of the land value as compensation is on the higher side, is rejected. In reaching such conclusion, the fact that no compensation was paid towards value of trees cut by the court below and drawing of the high tension lines has affected the quality of life of the respondents and their family is also taken into consideration.
For the aforementioned reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/