ARYA ANTHERJANAM Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Orders passed by the District Judge in exercise of the jurisdiction under S.16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with S.51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 are under challenge in these revision petitions. In C.R.P. Nos. 99, 191, 228, 306, 347 of 1994, 1358 and 2079 of 1995, the Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as 'Board', challenges the quantum of compensation granted by the District Judge as excessive whereas in C.R.P. Nos. 2128 of 1991, 1153, 1468, 1497, 1582, 1620, 1726, 1947 and 2049 of 1995 the complaint of the petitioners is that the compensation granted was inadequate. Apart from claiming enhanced compensation for destruction of trees standing on their property, the owners of the property claimed compensation for diminution in value of the land. When these revision petitions came up for admission before a learned single Judge, the Board took up a contention that dictum laid down by a decision of this Court in K.S.E.B. v. Cheriyan Varghese, 1989 (1) Ker LT 451 : (AIR 1989 Ker 198), in the matter of granting compensation for diminution in value of land is liable to be reconsidered. The learned single Judge referred the matter before a Division Bench. In view of the importance of the issue involved, a Division Bench of this Court referred the matter for consideration of the Full Bench.

(2.) Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 empowers the State Government to pass orders in the matter of placing of electricity supply lines etc. authorising any public officer or other person engaged in the business of supplying energy to the public to exercise any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with respect to the placing of telegraph lines and posts. Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 provides that the Board shall have all the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under Part-III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with regard to a telegraph established or maintained for the placing of any wires, poles etc. for the transmission and distribution of electricity. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 empowers the telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph line under, over, along or across and to erect posts in or upon, any immovable property. It is under the above provisions of law the Board is permitted to place towers and poles and draw electric line across immovable properties. Section 10(d) mandates the telegraph authority to do as little damage as possible, and, when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property it shall pay full compensation to all affected persons for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers. If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under S.10(d) it shall be decided by the District Judge as per S.16(3).

(3.) When electric supply lines are drawn through lands, it may result in destruction of trees and other improvements standing on the land. It can also result in diminution in value of the land over which the lines are drawn. Question that has come up for consideration before us is whether an owner of a land through which electric supply lines are drawn can claim compensation for diminution in value of the land in addition to compensation for the destruction of the trees and if so, to what extent? In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Varghese Thomas, 1961 Ker LT 238: (AIR 1961 Ker 237), a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider in detail the basis of quantification of compensation for destruction of fruit bearing or yielding or income producing trees standing on the land through which electric supply lines were drawn. This Court took the view that it is not the rule of capitalisation that has to be followed, but, on the other hand, compensation has to be fixed as the present value of an annuity which gives a return at the rate of 5% per annum. The reason for rejecting the method of capitalisation was that such method 'fails to take note of what is so obvious, that the tree would cease to be productive after a certain number of years and yet, what is paid, amounts to investment of capital, yielding what is the equivalent of the net annual rental, in perpetuity.'