The question of law involved in this Revision is whether the report submitted by the Commissioner appointed in an Original Petition (Electricity) can be accepted in evidence without examining the Commissioner.

2. For drawing a 11 KV electricity line, the property of the petitioner was crossed and trees were cut from the property. (The petitioner died pending Revision and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional revision petitioners.) The total extent of the property belonging to the petitioner is 72 cents. The Kerala State Electricity Board granted a compensation of Rs.12,330/- to the petitioner. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner filed O.P.(Ele.) No.107 of 1999 before the District Court, Alappuzha. The petitioner/claimant claimed a sum of Rs.4,42,500/- as additional compensation.

3. The court below, as per the order dated 30.3.2004, granted an enhanced compensation of Rs.39,878/-, comprising of enhanced compensation for the trees cut and as compensation for diminution of land value. The court below granted a sum of `36,000/- as compensation for diminution of land value. The Board had not granted any compensation to the petitioner on account of diminution of land value.

4. The order dated 30.3.2004 was challenged by the Board in C.R.P.No.1342 of 2004. A learned single Judge of this Court, by the order dated 17.3.2006, allowed the Revision and set aside the order passed by the learned District Judge and remanded the case for fresh disposal.

5. After remand, the court below passed an order dated 17.8.2006 granting an amount of Rs. 9,414/- as enhanced compensation for the trees cut in addition to the compensation awarded by the Board. The learned District Judge did not grant any amount as compensation for diminution of land value. In this Revision, the petitioner/claimant challenges the order passed by the learned District Judge, in so far as it relates to the refusal to grant any compensation for diminution of land value.

6. A Commissioner was appointed to inspect the property in question, who filed Ext.C1 report. The petitioner/claimant was examined as PW1 before the court below and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on his side. After remand, the Commissioner inspected the property again and filed a report. No oral evidence was adduced by the Board, either before or after remand.

7. The Commissioner reported that an extent of 9.55 cents of land is affected by the drawal of the line. The electricity line passes through the entire southern and western sides of the property of the petitioner. It is not disputed that no construction is possible within four metres of the place where the line passes. The Commissioner noticed that on the southern side of the property, the electricity line occupies an area of 45.6 metres length and four metres width, the extent of which comes to 4.55 cents. On the western side, the line was drawn to a length of 50 metres and taking four metres width as the area affected, the affected extent of land was found to be five cents. Thus the total extent of 9.55 cents was shown as the affected area as per the Commissioner's report.

8. The petitioner/claimant produced Exts.A2 to A4 title deeds to show that his property was having a land value of Rs. 50,000/- per cent at the relevant time. The trees were cut for drawing the line on 22.2.1995. As per Ext.A2 sale deed dated 6.11.1995, an extent of nine cents of land was sold for Rupees five lakhs. Ext.A2 property lies about two kilometers away from the property of the petitioner. As per Ext.A3 sale deed executed in the year 1999, the property situated three kilometers away from the petitioner's property was sold for a sum of Rupees four lakhs. Ext.A3 property is having an extent of 7 cents 620 sq. links. Ext.A4 property, situated 1.25 kilometers away from the property in question, was sold for a sum of Rs.3,81,000/-, the extent being 7 cents 620 Sq.links. Based on Exts.A2 to A4, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the value of