THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. C. BHARGAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the respondent in O.P.No.33/08 (Electricity) on the files of the District Court, Kasaragod. The above petition was filed by the respondent under Sec. 16 of the Indian Telegraphs Act and Sec. 51 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Sec. 42 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, seeking compensation for the loss suffered by the respondent by cutting and removal of trees and diminution of the land value caused by the drawing of 110 KVDC line over the respondent's property, for the purpose of setting up a sub station at Mulleria. At the first instance, the petitioner has passed an award granting an amount of 4,287/ - as compensation for the cutting of trees; but no amount had been awarded for the diminution of the land value. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred the above O.P. The respondent was examined as P.W.1 and Ext.A1 was marked. Ext.B1 was marked for the petitioner. The report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner were marked as Exts.C1 and C2 respectively. After considering the evidence on record, the learned District Judge passed an award granting Rs. 1,11,000/ - with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of cutting of trees till the date of actual payment.

(2.) THIS revision petition is filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board on the ground that the additional compensation given to the respondent is excessive and disproportionate with the actual loss suffered by the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments in support of various grounds raised in the Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition. According to him, the court below went wrong by granting Rs. 1,06,000/ - for diminution of the land value. The market value was fixed without any basis. Similarly, the percentage of diminution fixed by the court below is excessive and disproportionate with the actual area injuriously affected.

(3.) AS per Ext.C1 report and Ext.C2 plan, it is seen that the affected area would come to 53 cents and no serious objection was raised by the respondent against that finding of the Commissioner. More over, no evidence had been adduced by the respondent to the contrary. If the affected area was lesser than 53 cents, certainly the respondent could have produced the sketch prepared by the concerned officials of the respondent showing the nature and lie of the lines. Therefore, I find that the court below can be justified in taking 53 cents as affected area.