The review petitioners herein are the Revision petitioners in C.R.P. No.425/2010, which was filed against the award passed in O.P.(Ele.) No.204/2004 dated 03-04-2010. The review petitioners were co-owners of 2.05 Acres of land in Elamkulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk of Ernakulam district. The respondent, Kerala State Electricity Board had drawn 110 KV electric line over the petitioner's property, connecting Brahmapuram - Panampilly Nagar High Tension Line. An extent of 11.154 cents occupied for the huge tower installed by the K.S.E.B. and an extent of 64.325 cents was injuriously affected due to the drawing of overhead HT line, according to the petitioners.
2. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation determined by the court below, the review petitioners had preferred the above C.R.P. By the impugned order sought to be reviewed, this court enhanced the land value to Rs.40,000/-
and 100% compensation is allowed for the tower foot area and 40% is fixed for the line route affected area. Accordingly, the C.R.P stands disposed of by the impugned order sought to be reviewed.
3. The grievance of the petitioners in this Review Petition is that there is a specific claim for interest for the compensation claimed as the line had been drawn during 1994-1996. However, no award was passed with respect of diminution of land value. The award was passed on 17-10- 2003 only with respect to the land value diminished. However, the claim for interest in the order sought to be reviewed was allowed only from the date of application and no interest was granted from the date of cutting of trees, though the trees were cut and removed in the year 1993. Interest from the date of cutting of trees was denied in the impugned order on the reason that no trees were cut and removed from the property, though, in the decision cited by the learned counsel for the review petitioners, interest was granted from the date of cutting of trees. The above decision was distinguished in this case only for the reason that no trees were cut and removed from the property. But, in fact, trees were cut and removed from the property in the year 1993. It was so happened because the review petitioners could not bring home the said fact to this court at the time when the impugned order was passed. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, the claim for interest is liable to be reconsidered in the review petition as the petitioners are entitled to get interest from the date of cutting of trees.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners advanced arguments contending that interest was denied from the date of cutting of trees on the impression that no trees were cut and removed from the property and he could not bring the factum of cutting and removal of trees from the property at the time of arguing the case. Therefore, in the light of the decision reported in 'K.S.E.B v. Maranchi Matha' (2008 (1) KLT 1038) wherein interest has been granted from the date of cutting of trees, the petitioners are also entitled to get interest from the date of cutting trees.
5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board contended that interest from the date of cutting of trees cannot be granted in the instant case considering the fact that compensation for cutting and removal of trees were satisfactorily concluded earlier in O.P.(Ele.) 268/2001 filed by the petitioners before the Addl. District Court (Adhoc-II), Ernakulam. It is also pointed out that in that case additional compensation of Rs.35,304/- was allowed with 6% interest from 07-07-1992 till realisation of the compensation given to the damages caused for cutting and removal of trees. Therefore, the petitioners are not liable to get interest again from the date of cutting and removal of trees while considering the compensation for diminution of land value. If the review petition is allowed, they will be benefited twice for the same cause. It is also contended that the cutting and removal of trees is not a component consisting of diminution of land value where the compensation has been granted separately for cutting and removal of trees.
6. In view of the rival submissions made at the Bar, the short question that arises for consideration in this review petition is that whether the review petitioners who had received a compensation for the damages caused by cutting and removal of trees with interest from the date of cutting of trees are entitled to get interest for the diminution of land value from the date of cutting of trees, considering the loss of trees.
7. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the damages caused by cutting and removal of trees cannot be taken as an element or component constituting diminution of land value, where the compensation had already been granted for the damages caused by cutting and removal of trees with interest from the date of cutting of trees.
8. I am of the opinion that the component constituting diminution of land value is the damages caused by the nature and extent of lines drawn over the property only, where the compensation has been granted separately for the loss caused by cutting and removal of trees with interest from the date of cutting of trees. If the loss sustained by cutting and removal of trees is again taken as a component constituting diminution of land value and interest is granted from the date of cutting of trees again, certainly the review petitioners will be benefited twice for the same thing.
9. Going by the order passed in O.P.(Ele.) No.268/2001 filed by the petitioners claiming compensation for the damages caused by cutting and removal of trees, it could be seen that the petitioners were awarded with a total additional compensation of Rs.35,304/- with 6% interest from 07-07- 1992 till realisation of the said amount. If that be so, I hold that the petitioners are not entitled to get interest from the date of cutting of trees for compensation granted for diminution of land value.
For this analysis, I am inclined to dismiss this Review Petition and I do so.
Sd/-
K.HARILAL, JUDGE.
//true copy// St/-
P.S. To Judge