IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 473 of 2007() --------------------- OP(ELE.)216/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- SRI. T.J.JOSEPH, THAZHUPRAMBIL, X/344, KUMBALANGI, KOCHI-7. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- C.R.P No.473 OF 2007 -------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March 2010 ORDER Kerala State Electricity Board hereinafter referred to as the Board has filed this revision challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge (Adhoc-II), Ernakulam in O.P(Ele.) No.216 of 2003 awarding enhanced compensation to the respondent hereinafter referred to as the claimant towards the loss and injury suffered by him for the drawing of electric line through his property. The Board had awarded a sum of Rs.7,521/- towards the damages sustained by the claimant by cutting down of trees from his property for drawing the lines. Dissatisfied with the compensation fixed and awarded, the claimant preferred the above O.P seeking enhanced compensation. The District Judge reevaluating the compensation payable awarded a sum of Rs.10,731/- as enhanced compensation. Propriety and correctness of the compensation so awarded is challenged in the revision. 2. Revision was filed with a petition to condone delay of 344 days. Notice on the delay petition has not been effected so far on the claimant. Having regard to the fact that the revision has been filed as early in 2007, merit of the revision against the C.R.P No.473 OF 2007 Page numbers impugned order whether further opportunity should be provided to the Board to take out notice on the claimant was considered. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the Board. The only grievance canvassed is that compensation paid towards the diminution of land value by the court below was without any data. It is seen from the impugned order a sum of Rs.10,731/- alone was awarded as the enhanced compensation over and above the sum awarded by the Board. The Board had admittedly adopted annuity return of 10% in fixing the compensation payable for the trees cut down. The court below adopting the annuity return of 5% following the guidelines given in “K.S.E.B v Kumba Amma” (2000(1) KLT 542) refixed the compensation and found a sum of Rs.5,731/- is due to the claimant as enhanced compensation. Practically there is no dispute with respect to the compensation awarded on that ground. As already indicated, the challenge is against the awarding of compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards injurious affection of the land on account of the drawing of the line. It is seen that the trees were cut down from the property of the claimant for the purpose of drawing 110KV electric line. Having regard to the number of trees cut down and also that for the drawing of 110KV line, not only the area underneath but sufficient area on both sides which is often called as clearing area C.R.P No.473 OF 2007 Page numbers has to be provided to avoid any mishap and to ensure free flow of energy. I find, a sum of Rs.5,000/- fixed by the court below towards the diminution of land value to the claimant in the present case is not at all excessive and unreasonable. There is no jurisdictional infirmity in the awarding of Rs.5,000/- towards diminution of land value to the claimant by the court below. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv