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
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
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/
