Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the court below, the petitioner in O.P.(EL) No.370 of 1999 has come up before this Court. 2. Fortunately, there is no dispute regarding the number and nature of trees cut and removed from the property nor is there any dispute regarding the extent of land affected by the drawing of electric line. The dispute centers around only the question of percentage of expenses taken, from the gross value of the rubber trees and pepper plant and also the land value taken for diminution of land value and the percentage on diminution of land value. The court below felt that 60% of the income has be set apart for expenses and only 40% will be available. As far as the value of property is concerned, even though the commissioner had reported that, the value of the property would come to `8,000/-
per cent, the court below thought it fit to award only `1,000/- per cent. Further, the court below was also of the view that there is only 20% of diminution in the land value by the drawing of the electric line.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board contended that the entire amount awarded has already been deposited and withdrawn by the party concerned . The multiplier adopted is 22, which is sufficient to compensate, even if, there is any infirmity in the assessment made by the lower court. As far as the land value is concerned, according to the learned counsel on an earlier occasion, when the land value was fixed `1,000/-, the petitioner has brought up the matter before this Court and this Court allowed the petition and sent back the matter permitting the petitioner to adduce further evidence in that regard. No fresh evidence was adduced and therefore, the court below was justified in awarding the market value of the land at `1,000/- per cent.
4. No doubt the contentions raised may look formidable and attractive. But by no stretch of imagination one could justify the deduction of 60% towards the expenses from the net income. Normal practice is to deduct only 30% and that alone could have been done in this case also. Deduction of 60% towards expenses, therefore, cannot be justified.
5. As far as the land value is concerned, it is true that the petitioner did not adduce any evidence subsequent to the remand. But the commission report shows that the land value is `8,000/- per cent. The petitioner had a case that it is `15,000/- per cent. However, the assessment of the market value of the land as `1,000/- seems to be unfair and considering the price of the land at that point of time, reasonable price would have been at about `1,500/- per cent.
6. The line drawn is 200 KV across the property of the petitioner. Petitioner says that the line was drawn through the middle of the property and his property was divided into two, causing loss of utility of the entire property and it cannot be put to any use whatsoever.
7. One needs to remember that, there was no acquisition, and the property remains in the possession of the petitioner. The diminution of the land value in such cases are normally calculated as 40%. Therefore, the diminution of the land value in this case would be 40% i.e., `1,500/- per cent and it is already stated the extent of land affected is 110.68 cents. The lower court seems to have erred in these matters to the above extent.
8. For the above reasons this petition is allowed as follows :
(i) The percentage of the expenses calculated by the court below at 60% is reduced to 30%. The land value is enhanced to `1,500/- and diminution percentage is assessed as 40%. Extent of property affected remains the same.
9. On the basis of the above date, the lower court shall redetermine the compensation. The enhanced amount awarded on the above basis shall carry 6% interest from the date of cutting. The amount already paid shall be given credit to.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board pointed out that for the amount already awarded, 12% interest has been granted and that is on the high side. But it is seen that during the relevant period that was the practice and that was being followed by the courts and a different view cannot be taken in this case alone, though, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, it may look highly excessive.
11. The matter is sent back to the lower court for the above purpose. Parties shall appear before the lower court on 05.11.2014 and the lower court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 'two months' from the date of appearance of the parties.
AMV/08/10/ Sd/-
(P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE)