K.J. Baby vs The Kerala State Electricity Board and The Deputy Thahasildar (Land Acquisition) for Kerala State Electricity Board

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—Both the claimants as also the Board has filed revision against the common order passed in OP(Ele) No. 33 and 34/2002. The claimants before the lower court were brothers. They were in possession of 46.500 cents of property each lying contiguously, north-south. The respondent board for the purpose of facilitating laying of 110 KV electricity line erected a tower in the property, which is the subject matter in OP(Ele) No. 33/2003 and drew the line diagonally through the middle of both the properties from south to north; cutting the properties into two halves, is the contention. Dissatisfied with the meagre compensation awarded by the Board, the petitioners were before the Court below claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 43,35,000 and Rs. 43,60,000 respectively. Admittedly, the drawing of the electricity line has caused substantial injurious effect on the property. The property of the claimants is said to be situated in a very important locality, adjacent to a School and very near the Vyttila junction. The petitioner had taken out a Commission and the report along with the sketch was filed after inspection of the properties. With respect to the property in OP(Ele) No. 33/02 the Commissioner segregated the same into four categories. Category identified as ''A'' is the 950 cents where the tower was erected and, 8.400 cents was classified as ''B'' where the land is said to have become useless by the drawing of lines and an extent of 5.750 cents classified as ''C'' was found to be the land which ran beneath the lines. The remaining property of 31.400 cents was marked as D1 and D2. With respect to the property in OP(Ele)No. 34/2002, 9.750 cents were demarcated as ''A'', over which the lines were drawn. The remaining extent of land demarcated as ''B1'', ''B2'' and ''B3'' comprising of 31.740 cents was found to be not affected by the drawing of the lines. The Court below accepted the said segregation of property in the Commission report.

In OP(Ele)No. 33/2002 while the portion described as ''A'' was granted 100% compensation, ''B'' and ''C'' were granted 75% and 50% respectively. D1 and D2 was also granted 25% compensation. In OP(Ele) No. 34/2002, B1, B2 and B3 being 36.750 cents of land was found to be not seriously affected and even then compensation was granted at the rate of 25%. With respect to the 9.250 cents over which the lines were drawn 50% was granted.

The claimants before the Court below is before this Court, seeking enhanced compensation and the Board seeks reduction of the compensation granted contending that the entire properties ought not have been granted compensation. On looking at the sketch appended to the Commission report, it is seen that the lines have been drawn north-south through the portions marked as ''A'' and ''C''. D1 and B1 are to the east and cannot be considered as being injuriously affected by the drawing of the lines. From a reading of the Commission report, It is also seen that the Commissioner has recorded that the entire land is wet reclaimed land and the properties are divided into several pieces and constructions of houses are going on there. In the context of the clear report it cannot at all be deduced that the entire property has been rendered useless. No objection has been filed by the claimants.

In both the electricity O.Ps it is found that due to the drawing of the line, entire properties have been granted compensation at different percentage. The drawing of the line has been effected only north-south to the west of both these properties. The property together is comprised of around 93 cents, half of the holding being with, each of the petitioners. It is trite that on the drawing of an electricity line over a property; it would be affected injuriously, but it is for the land owner to put the property to best use possible and there cannot be compensation granted as in land acquisition cases. It is also not as if the entire property would be affected injuriously. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that, the Court below has not considered the matter in the correct perspective.

The claimants also have a case that the market value adopted by the Court below is not proper. The document produced as Ext. A7 is with respect to a small extent of property and also with a building thereon. The land value has been determined at Rs. 44,947/- per cent that too in the year 1994. The electricity lines were drawn over the property in the year 2001. The subject matter of both the claims petitions are properties having large extent and the land value of large extents definitely would be on the lower side. Land value for larger extents cannot be equated to the land value of small extent of property that too with a building thereon. However, the Court without considering any increase in price over the years has adopted the land value in the year 1994 for a small extent of property as being the correct land value in the year 2001 for a larger extent of property. This is without any basis. The Commissioner''s report in fact speaks of higher value on the date of line drawing. The Court below in the opinion of this Court has not applied its mind to this aspect also. In the result this Court is of the opinion that, the order of the Court below cannot be sustained and the same is hence set-aside and the case remanded for fresh consideration. The Court below shall consider afresh the claim for compensation, in accordance with law. The parties shall be given one opportunity to adduce any further evidence. The parties shall appear before the Court below on 03/12/2012. The Court below shall dispose of the matter at any rate within a period of six months from that day.

The Civil Revision Petitions are allowed remanding the matter, to be considered afresh on the issues raised herein.