IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 1049 of 2006() ---------------------- OPELE.168/2004 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ------------------ KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ------------- SRI.JOHN, S/O.GEEVARGHESE THOPPIL VEEDU VEZHAPRAMBU MULAMTHURUTHI BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.1049 of 2006 ------------------------------- Dated this the 30th June, 2008. O R D E R Kerala State Electricity Board has filed this revision petition challenging the enhanced compensation granted by the Additional District Court, Ernakulam, in O.P.(Ele) No.168/2004. As compensation Rs.4687/= was granted by the petitioner-Board for drawing electric line over the property of the respondent. That compensation was awarded only as value of the trees cut and removed for drawing the line. Dissatisfied with the quantum, respondent had filed the petition before the District Court. Learned District Judge, on the evidence, granted enhanced compensation of Rs.8,875/=, which is challenged in this revision petition as excessive. Out of the enhanced compensation granted, Rs.5000/= was granted on account of diminution of land value. For diminution of land value, nothing was paid as per the original award. Learned District Judge, on the evidence, found that 18 trees had to be cut for drawing the line and affected extent of the property would be 5 cents. It is on that basis 25% of land value was given for diminution of land value, assessing CRP.No.1049/2006 2 the market value of the property at Rs.4000/= per cent. Though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that compensation so awarded is excessive, on the materials, I cannot agree. So also, only a nominal increase of Rs.3,875/= was granted for the value of improvements. In such circumstances, the award is fair and reasonable. There is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference in the impugned order. The revision petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.