Kerala High Court
The Kerala State Electricity Board vs Preethamol 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. 53 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.09.2014 IN OPELE
NO.126 OF 2004 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & I
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB
SHRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD LIMITED
SHRI.B.PREMOD, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD
RESPONDENT/S:
PREETHAMOL
W/O SURESHKUMAR, SURESH BHAVAN, THOTTATHIM MURI,
KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN-690 520
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARUN BABU
SRI.R.NIKHIL
OTHER PRESENT:
SC FOR KSEB A.ARUNKUMAR
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.03.2024, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP No.53 of 2015
-2-
CRP No.53 of 2015
-3-
ORDER
Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2024
The Kerala State Electricity Board is
aggrieved by the enhanced compensation awarded
towards value of trees cut and diminution of land
value for the loss sustained by the respondent
due to the drawing of 220 KV transmission line
over the respondent's property. The total extent
of the property is 45 cents and it contained
rubber, coconut and teak trees. Perusal of the
order shows that the court below had followed the
guidelines set out by the Apex Court in Airport
Authority v. SathyagopalRoy [2022 (3) SCC 527]
and KSEB v. Livisha [(2007) 6 SCC 792] for
determining the quantum of compensation.
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 compensation for loss
sustained towards value of trees cut, the court
below assessed the yield of the rubber and
coconut trees with reference to Exts.A2, A16(a)
and A16(b) Mahazars as well as Ext.A13 price list
notified by the Department of Economics and
Statistics during June to October, 2003. The
testimony of the Deputy Rubber Production
Commissioner as well as the Range Forest Officer,
Thenmala given in similar cases was also referred
to. After assessing the annual yield based on the
above evidence, the court below adopted 8 as the
multiplier and deducted 15% towards maintenance
and expenses for labour and cost of tapping.
Insofar as the court below has relied on
acceptable evidence and took only 8 as the
multiplier, there is no reason to interfere with
the procedure adopted for fixing the value of
trees cut, particularly when 15% is deducted
towards maintenance and expense.
4. For deciding the compensation towards
diminution in land value, the court below relied
on the oral evidence of the Power of Attorney
holder of the respondent and the Advocate
Commissioner's report and plan. Based on such
evidence, it was found that the high tension
lines are passing over an extent of 3.08 Ares.
For fixing the land value of the affected area,
Ext.A8 sale deed was relied on. Even though the
respondent had claimed market value at
Rs.6,956.80/- per cent, the land value was fixed
at Rs.5,000/- per cent. Further, considering that
the land is still in the possession of the
respondent, only Rs.2,500/- per cent was granted
as compensation towards diminution in land value.
Being so, there is no reason to interfere with
the said finding also.
For the aforementioned reasons, the civil
revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
