KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Vs. CHANDRAMATHY, D/O. LATE JANAKIAMMA ARTHIYIL HOUSE, MARADU P.O., COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above case came up in the defect list. However, I directed the counsel for the Electricity Board to submit on merits. I have also perused the delay condonation application and the affidavit filed therein to condone the delay of 552 days. The Board is in revision before this Court, against the enhanced compensation granted in O.P.(Ele) No. 486 of 1997, which was decided along with certain other Original petitions claiming enhanced compensation with respect to the injurious effect and the value of the trees felled in the property of various petitioners for the purpose of laying Aroor -Kalamassery 110 K.V. D.C. line. When ordering joint trial, it was also specified that evidence would be recorded in O.P.(Ele) No. 355/1997. The evidence consisted of the testimony of PW1 and PW2 and Ext. A1, Commissioner's report and sketch, Exts. C1 and C1A were marked on behalf of the petitioners. The respondent Board produced the file relating to the case as Exts. R1 to R7 along with detailed valuation statement.

(2.) PW 1, highlighted the importance of the locality, by pointing out that the properties were located > km from the Ernakulam -Madurai National High way as also the Tripunithura -Ernakulam road. The hotels, Hospitals and the various showrooms of motor vehicles have been specifically deposed to; to accentuate the importance of the locality. The market value of the land in the area according to PW1 was Rs. 30,000/ -/ - per cent. All the properties were said to have road frontage also. Ext. A1, sale deed was produced to prove the value claimed at Rs. 50,000/ - per cent. The commission report showed that all the properties are lying adjacent to each other and the value of the land claimed by the petitioner has also been affirmed by the Commissioner. With respect to the instant case, it was also noticed by the commissioner that the tower erected in the property resulted in blockage of ingress and egress into the property of the petitioner herein. This was the only access that revision petitioner had to his property. The commissioner hence estimated diminution of land value of the entire property to the extent of Rs. 70,000/ -per cent.

(3.) EVEN looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that adoption of 5% annuity was not proper. It is also pertinent that even the Manual of instructions issued by the Board adopts 5% annuity rates. The court below then proceeded to consider the petitions independently. In the instant case, the Board had granted Rs. 7,140/ - as compensation for the value of trees felled. The enhanced compensation with respect to the value of trees felled was computed at Rs. 7,299/ -. The computation so arrived at cannot be faulted with and cannot be said to be unreasonably high or excessive. With respect to the diminution of land value and compensation for injurious effect, 30% was determined as the rate and 15 cents was asserted to be the extent injuriously affected. The revision petitioner was granted an enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/ -. Considering the fact that the revision petitioner's access to the property itself had been blocked and also considering the small area held by the revision petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the enhanced compensation granted with respect to the diminution in land value, the rate of injurious effect fixed and the extent determined is not liable to be interfered with.