IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 510 of 2005 --------------------- ( OP (ELECTRICITY).91/2002 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA) REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.S.E. BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------ SCARIA, S/O. JOSEPH, PUTHUPALLIL HOUSE, KEETTILA KARA, ARAKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO. 1382 OF 2005 IN C.R.P.NO. 510 OF 2005 DISMISSED. 10.04.2008 SD/- K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, J. ............................................................................ C.R.P. No. 510 OF 2005 ............................................................................ Dated this the 10th April, 2008 O R D E R The Kerala State Electricity Board has filed this Revision challenging the award dated 21st August, 2004 in O.P.(Electricity) 91 of 2002 on the file of the court of the Addl. District Judge, Thodupuzha, whereby additional compensation of Rs.38,400/- was granted in favour of the respondent. 2. For drawing Karimkunnam 66 K.V. line, trees were cut from the property of the respondent. The respondent filed O.P.(Elec.) No.91 of 2002 claiming additional compensation of Rs.1,59,599/-. Various grounds were raised by him in the O.P. 3. As regards the claim made by the respondent that the yield assessed by the Board is low, the court below rejected that prayer on the ground that no evidence was adduced by the respondent. Similarly, the claim for compensation on account of diminution of land value, was also rejected by the court below for dearth of evidence. As regards the price fixed for Coffee, the court below held that Rs.15/- per Kg. for Coffee as assessed by the Board is low and that it would be reasonable to grant Rs.30/- per Kg. The claim made by the respondent that the price of Coffee should be fixed at Rs.60.10/- per Kg. on the basis of Ext.A1 price list, was not accepted by the court below. I am of the view that the amount fixed by the court below as value of Coffee per Kg. is just and reasonable. 4. The Board had made deduction of 60% in the case of Coffee and 43.75% for other produces as expense of cultivation. The court below found that this is C.R.P. No. 510 OF 2005 2 excessive. Based on the consistent view taken by the court below, deduction for Coconut and rubber was fixed at 40%, for Arecanut at 35%, for Coffee at 30% and for other improvements at 25%. The deductions, as made by the court below are also just and reasonable. The court below also relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kumba Amma vs. K.S.E.B. [2000 (1) K.L.T. 542 (FB)] and the rate of return was fixed at 5% in the matter of fixing compensation for tree cutting. On going through the award passed by the court below, it is seen that the court below has considered all relevant aspects and fixed a reasonable amount as additional compensation. Therefore, no interference is called for in this Revision. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk