The revision petitioner - Kerala State Electricity Board, is the respondent in O.P. (EA) No.130/2005 on the files of the Additional District Court, Alappuzha. The respondent herein had filed the above petition under Sec.16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Sec.51 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Sec.42 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, claiming compensation for the trees cut and removed from her property and also for diminution of the land value by drawing of 110 KV electric transmission line over her property. The petitioner had given `31,000/- only as compensation to the respondent for the trees cut and removed from her property. No amount had been paid for diminution of the land value. According to the respondent, the amount given by the petitioner, as compensation, is too low and inadequate. Hence the respondent claimed a total compensation of `3,44,900/- as additional compensation. The court below, after considering the objection raised by the petitioner and the evidence on record, consisting of Ext.C1 Commission Report, Ext.C1(a) mahazar and Ext.C1(b) rough sketch, granted an amount of `1,12,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of cutting of trees till its realisation. This revision petition has been filed challenging the excessive additional compensation granted to the respondent on various grounds. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the additional compensation granted by the court below is excessive and disproportionate with the actual loss sustained by the respondent. The authorised and experienced officers of the petitioner, after properly enumerating the trees, assessing the yield and age of the trees, prepared a mahazar and on the basis of that mahazar, granted adequate amount as compensation. But the court below had interfered with the said amount without sufficient reasoning. Similarly, the court below went wrong by taking the entire extent of the property as affected area. The market value fixed by the court below is also excessive. Hence the impugned order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent advanced arguments to justify the quantum of additional compensation granted by the court below. According to him, the amount granted is just and proper, which would reflect the compensation for the actual loss sustained by the respondent. The court below can be justified in relying on the commission report in the absence of any evidence from the part of the petitioner, to the contrary. The petitioner had not filed an objection to the commission report and thereby the commission report stands as unchallenged. Therefore, the court below cannot be found with fault for relying on Exts.C1 to C1(b). In short, there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the court below.
4. Heard both sides. The short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether there is any illegality or impropriety in any of the findings by which the additional compensation had been granted.
5. Admittedly, the electric transmission lines had been drawn over the respondent's property having an extent of 14 cents. Going by the impugned order, it could be seen that the respondent had produced a detailed valuation statement to substantiate her claim in accordance with the dictum laid down in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)]. As per the statement, the respondent claimed an amount of `26,440/- as additional compensation for the trees cut and removed. But the petitioner had not cut and removed or produced any mahazar or valuation statement to substantiate her version. Admittedly, coconut trees, mango trees, cashew trees and pepper trees were cut and removed by the petitioner. As rightly held by the court below, the burden is on the shoulders of the petitioner to convince the data regarding the trees which were cut and removed from the respondent's property. In the absence of any contra evidence, I cannot find fault with the court below for relying on the valuation statement filed by the respondent. Therefore, I find that there is no reason to interfere with the additional compensation granted for the cutting and removal of the trees from the respondent's property.
6. As regards compensation granted towards diminution of the land value, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire extent of the property could not have been taken as affected area. But the petitioner failed to produce the sketch showing the lie of the property as he same was not drawn. Per contra, the Commissioner had drawn and produced Ext.C1(b) rough sketch which would show the lie of the property and the manner in which the transmission line had been drawn through the respondent's property. Going by the rough sketch, it is seen that the respondent's property lies in a rectangular shape and the line had been drawn covering the entire length of the property, through almost middle of the property. The law settled by the Apex Court in Livisha's case is that the situs of the land, the extent of the land and the manner in which the transmission line has been drawn are relevant factors to be considered, while determining the compensation for diminution of the land value. In the instance case, having regard to the said factors, I am of the opinion that the entire extent of the property is seen affected by drawing of the line. Therefore, I find that, being a small plot, the court below can be justified in taking the entire extent of property as affected area. Similarly, the percentage of the diminution also seems to be just and proper. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the additional compensation given towards diminution of the land value also. Thus, at all points, this revision petition fails.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge