The Court upheld the compensation awarded for property loss under relevant Acts, affirming the District Judge's findings on valuation and interest rates.

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, challenging the order dated 28.03.2014 in O.P(Ele) No. 53/2012 on the files of the Court of the Additional District Judge-I, Pathanamthitta. The revision petitioner is the respondent in the said original petition. The original petition has been filed by the respondents herein under Sections 10 and 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, for short) read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 , seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Corporation for the trees cut and removed from their property for the purpose of drawing 400 K.V. Electric line/ erecting tower from Edamon to Kochi.

2. The learned District Judge found that the respondents are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,19,913.43/-for the cutting of trees and Rs.1,02,480/-

for the diminution in land value. The original petition was allowed in part and the respondents were allowed to realise an additional amount of Rs.2,22,393/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of cutting of trees with proportionate cost from the petitioner and its assets.

3. The order of the learned District Judge is impugned on the following grounds:

(i) The land value fixed is high and erroneous.

(ii) The compensation for trees cut is high and erroneous.

(iii) The learned District Judge went wrong in fixing the percentage of diminution in land value at

20%.

(iv) The learned District Judge went wrong in fixing the rate of interest at 10% per annum and awarding the same from the date of cutting of trees.

4. Heard Sri.Millu Dandapani, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The revision petition is filed along with an application to condone the delay in filing the petition. Notice was ordered in the application to condone delay and delay was condoned. The original petition was admitted on 12.10.2017 and notice was ordered. Since the process fee for service of notice has not been paid, notice has not been served on the respondents and service is incomplete. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed for default in terms of Rule 67 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971. However, Sri.Millu submitted that fresh notice may be ordered on the respondents. To consider the said request, the learned counsel was asked to argue the revision petition on merits. Sri.Millu argued by reiterating the grounds pleaded in the memorandum of revision petition.

6. As regards the contention of the revision petitioner that the land value of the property fixed is high. On going through paragraph No.10 of the impugned order, I find that the land value has been fixed as Rs.10,000/- per cent on the basis of Ext.A23 fair value statement published by the Government. I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned District Judge with regard to fixation of land value.

7. On going through paragraph No.9 of the impugned order, I find that the learned District Judge has fixed the percentage of diminution in land value as 20% after taking into consideration the relevant factors laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inKerala State Electricity Board v.Livisha and others [ 2007 (3) KLT 1 ]. I find no reason to interfere with the finding regarding the fixation of percentage of diminution in land value.

8. The loss sustained due to the cutting of yielding trees is assessed by taking the average annual yield, multiplying it by the value of one yield unit, and thereafter deducting the immature falling and expenses. The enhanced compensation of Rs.1,19,913.43/- is just and reasonable.

9. The multiplier factor adopted by the learned District Judge for determining the compensation for trees cut is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supre