Kerala State Electricity Board vs Narayanan Kutty Nair

It is not in dispute that the trees standing in the property having an extent of 10.52 Ares which belongs absolutely to the petitioner before the court below were cut and removed for drawing 33 KV extra high tension line by the Board. The Board paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation. Dissatisfied with the amount so given, the petitioner approached the court concerned for enhancement of compensation. The lower court found that the amount granted by the Board for trees cut and removed is just and proper and refused to interfere with the amount so given by the Board.

However, the court below found that no amount had been granted by the Board towards diminution in land value and according to the court below, the petitioner was entitled to the same as per the decisions of the Apex Court. In order to assess the diminution in land value, the court below relied on Ext. A4 document produced by the petitioner and on that basis assessed the land value at Rs. 35,000/- per cent. Assessing the diminution in land value at 40% and taking 5.25 cents as affected area, an amount of Rs. 73,500/- was granted as diminution in land value with 6% interest from the date of cutting of trees till realization. It is the said order that is assailed in this revision petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that it is without any rhyme or reason that the court below had accepted Ext. A4 and arrived at the land value on that basis. There is nothing to show, according to the learned counsel, that the land covered by Ext. A4 compares well with the land in question and evidence in that regard was absolutely necessary before the value in Ext. A4 could have been accepted. Merely by production of documents, it does not follow that the value can be simply accepted. The Commissioner was not asked to assess the value of the land or to find out whether the property of the petitioner was lying close to the property covered by Exts. A3 or A4. Therefore, it is contended that the assessment on the basis of Ext. A4 document cannot be sustained.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand contended that 4.05 Ares of land was sold for Rs. 2,75,000/- as per Ext. A4 document and the document was of the year 2004. The trees were cut and removed in 2005. P.W. 1 in his evidence has stated that the property covered by Ext. A4 lies close to his property and therefore the contention now raised that there is no evidence regarding the proximity of the land cannot be accepted. Further, it is contended that out of the sale consideration covered by Ext. A4, only Rs. 35,000/- per cent has been awarded even though the property would have fetched much more than that and this may be due to the fact that the property of the petitioner is not exactly the same as the one covered by Ext. A4. The reduction in land value is sufficient to show that the court below has considered this aspect also. It is therefore contended that there is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the Board.

After having heard learned counsel on both sides and having perused the records, it is felt that there is considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent. The court below found that the petitioner before it was not entitled to any enhanced amount for the trees cut and removed and the amount already awarded is just and proper. The Board did not grant any amount towards diminution in land value. The court below was therefore perfectly justified in its approach that in law the petitioner is entitled to diminution in land value.

The petitioner produced two documents in support of his claim for value of the land in the locality. They are Exts. A3 and A4. According to them, Ext. A3 is of the year 2007 and Ext. A4 is of the year 2004. The trees were cut as already mentioned in 2005. When examined as P.W. 1, the petitioner has categorically stated that the property covered by Exts. A3 and A4 lie close to his property. Moreover, the Commissioner in his report has also narrated the various institutions and public offices nearby to the property. In the light of these items of evidence, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is nothing to show that the property of the petitioner compares well with the property covered by Exts. A3 and A4 cannot be accepted. If that be so, there is nothing to indicate that the land value taken as Rs. 35,000/- per cent is either excessive or arbitrary.

The court below has assessed the diminution in land value at 40% and taken 5.25 cents as affected area. There is no reason to interfere with those conclusions.

The result is that Rs. 73,500/- granted as diminution in land value seems to be just and reasonable and seems to be a just compensation. No grounds are made out to interfere with the order of the court below.

This revision petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed.