The petitioner in O.P.(Electricity)No.11/05 of the Additional District Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram has come up in revision by challenging order dated 27.03.2010 passed by the said court.
2. The petitioner had approached the court below through the above said original petition by claiming compensation on account of the damage caused to his property as well as for the trees cut and removed from the property for the passage of high tension 220 KV overhead electric line through his property. The total extent of the property of the petitioner is 64 cents. An extent of 29.652 cents of property is really affected on account of the passage of the high tension overhead electric line. Various trees were cut and removed. Altogether, 22 yielding coconut trees, several yielding arecanut trees, and miscellaneous trees on which pepper wines were crawling, were cut and removed from the property. According to the petitioner, the compensation of Rs.89,339/- granted by the respondent is too meagre.
3. The court below has not interfered with the valuation made by the respondents in respect of the trees cut and removed from the property. By considering the land value at Rs.12,570/- per Are, the court below has granted an amount of Rs.75,420/- towards diminution in land value, thereby granting a total amount of Rs.88,788/- including interest, as additional compensation. It seems that the court below has relied on the decision in KSEB V. Livisha – 2007 (3) KLT 1(SC).
4. On going through the mahazar as well as valuation statement, it seems that the property was planted with coconut and arecanut trees and many such valuable trees. Miscellaneous trees were also planted on which paper wines were crawling. It seems that numerous pepper wines were cut and removed along with the miscellaneous trees. For loss of such pepper wines, Rs.10 each was granted as compensation. On going through the valuation statement, it seems that the valuation done by the respondents is liable to be interfered with. At the same time, as found by the court below, no evidence was adduced by the petitioner before the court below to show that the valuation statement as such is totally incorrect. Other similar trees are there in other portions of the property and the petitioner could have obtained the assistance of a Commissioner for getting a correct valuation with regard to the similar trees standing in other portions of the property. There was no attempt from the part of the petitioner to take out a Commission before the court below. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for an opportunity to the petitioner to get a Commissioner appointed by the court below to note down the yield of other similar trees standing in the property. Considering the fact that numerous yielding trees including numerous paper wines were cut and removed from the property, this Court is of the view that one more opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to prove his case before the court below.
5. Regarding the land value also, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner could not adduce any evidence. Of course, when the other matter also requires reconsideration, the question relating to land value can also be decided by the court below, for which one more opportunity can be granted to the petitioner. Matters being so, the impugned order can be set aside and the matter can be remitted to the court below for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
In the result, the CRP is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the court below for fresh consideration in accordance with law, by giving one more opportunity to the petitioner to take out a Commission for procuring evidence regarding the yield from other similar trees standing in the property. The parties can adduce further evidence with regard to the land value also. The parties shall appear before the court below on 10.11.2014.
ul/-
Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE [True copy] P.S. to Judge