KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. MARY GEORGE ANANDASSERY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above revision is filed by the Electricity Board with a delay of 172 days. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, by order dated 11.1.2011, it was directed that the delay will be condoned on the revision petitioner/Board paying an amount of Rs. 1,000/ - as costs within a period of one month to the respondent. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the said cost has not been paid. The delay condonation application, hence, has to be dismissed. However, in view of the fact that both the counsel were present, it was directed that the matter will be argued on merits too. The respondent/claimant was before the court below claiming enhanced compensation for the value of trees felled in the property of the respondent's/claimant's property and the injurious effect suffered by the property by reason of drawing Aroor -Mattancherry 110KV line over the property. Respondent Board paid an amount of Rs. 54,933/ - for the trees cut and removed. The same was challenged as being meagre. The petitioner also claimed that 30 cents of the property has been injuriously affected. In fact, there was an earlier disposal of the matter along with other matters and on a specific order of remand, the court below considered the matter afresh.

(2.) WITH respect to the rate of annuity adopted for computing the compensation, the court below relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Kumba Amma Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board, (2000(1) KLT 542). The decision in Kumba Amma has been over ruled by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala Vs. Livisha : 2007(6) SCC 792. However, the Supreme Court has laid down that though the fixed percentage as laid down by Kumba Amma is not to be taken, the facts and circumstances of each case has to be looked into while giving enhanced compensation. Even considering the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Livisha, the issue of compensation has to be considered with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case. Before the court below, the petitioner's counsel filed a revised valuation statement on the basis of Kumba Amma. On facts it was noticed that 21 coconut trees aged 20 years were cut and removed. The revised valuation statement filed by the claimant before the court below was accepted and the annuity rate adopted was at 5%. Though Kumba Amma(supra) has been overruled, it is pertinent that the Supreme Court has also held that the facts and circumstances of each case has to be gone into to decide the compensation payable. Considering the period in which the trees were felled and also the age and nature of the trees felled, this Court is of the opinion that, on facts, the adoption of 5% annuity cannot at all be interfered with. The enhanced compensation granted with respect to the value of trees felled is reasonable and cannot at all be said to be excessive. With respect to the diminution in land value, earlier the land value was fixed at Rs. 10,000/ - per cent and the rate of diminution at 40%. In the revised valuation statement, the claimant sought for diminution of land value at Rs. 88,800/ - Considering the evidence that the properties are located within the limits of Corporation of Kochi and the revised valuation statement, the court below fixed the total compensation payable at Rs. 1,46,483/ -. Considering the importance of the locality, the enhanced compensation granted by the court below cannot at all be said to be excessive. The petitioner was also granted interest at the rate of 10% from the date of felling of trees till realisation. This Court has time and again held that the compensation with respect to the diminution in land value and the value of the trees felled in the property has to relate back to the date when such injury was caused. It can be safely assumed that the injury to the property was caused on the date of felling of trees. The grant of interest from that date cannot at all be assailed.