THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO Civil Revision Petition No.2907 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners herein are the respondents before the Court below. They filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking to assail the correctness of the order, dated 09.10.2007, passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, awarding compensation in respect of the trees cut down in the subject land for construction of 400 K.V.Ramagundam – Hyderabad D/C Line. Briefly the undisputed facts are that the petitioners have taken up the work of construction of 400 K.V.Ramagundam – Hyderabad D/C Line sanctioned project under Ramagundam – stage – III transmission system. As the said Line is passing through the land belonging to the respondent situated in Survey Nos.136 and 142 admeasuring Acs.7.00 and there are standing trees, which were cut down, a claim was made for compensation thereof. According to the petitioners, it is only 67 trees as assessed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramagundam and due payment was already paid and therefore, there was no need for warranting interference by the Court below. However, the claim of the respondent is to the effect that number of trees cut are not 67, but 83 and further, the rate at which the tree has been assessed is also incorrect. During the course of enquiry before the Court below, the petitioners got examined RW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3 and on the other hand, the respondent got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. Thereupon, the Court below, after considering the rival contentions and the material placed before it, came to the conclusion that the trees which have been cut are not 67, but 83 and further each tree has to be assessed at higher rate and in total, granted a sum of Rs.1,16,200/- out of which Rs.30,900/- was already paid by the petitioners. Thus, the trial Court allowed the petition for an amount of Rs.85,300/- with interest at the rate of 6%. Hence, this civil revision petition. After hearing the learned counsel on either side in detail and also on perusal of the material on record, the point for consideration is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below is right in enhancing the compensation for the trees cut and whether the trees cut are 67 or 83? No doubt, on behalf of the respondent-claimant, there is ample evidence. PW.2, who cut the trees, has categorically stated that on the request of the petitioners, he cut 67 trees at the first stage and on further request, he cut 16 trees more, totalling 83 trees and PW.3, the Deputy M.R.O., Ramagundam, has corroborated the testimony of PW.1 stating that the trees cut are 83. There is no single piece of evidence on behalf of the petitioners to disbelieve the version of the respondent. In view of the same and especially in the absence of any valid material supporting the version of the petitioners, and having regard to such findings of fact arrived at by the Court below duly supported by valid evidence and material, I do not find any reason warranting interference of this Court with the impugned order, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J Dt.05.08.2010 VGB