IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 2966 of 2001() -------------------------------- OP.323/1998 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------- SECRETARY, K.S.E. BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. MR.C.K. KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- CHAZHISSERI JOSEPH, AGRICULTURIST, THEMATHACHAL, PAYYAVOOR AMOSM DESOM, THALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- C.R.P No.2966 OF 2001 -------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February 2010 ORDER Revision is directed against the order dated 22/09/2000 in O.P No.323/1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Thalassery. The respondent in the revision hereinafter referred to as the claimant filed the above O.P under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act r/w Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act seeking enhanced compensation for the trees cut and removed and damages caused to his property through which overhead electric lines were drawn by the revision petitioner hereinafter referred to as the Board. Though the Board resisted the application contending that adequate and reasonable compensation had been paid to the claimant, after examining the materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides, the learned District Judge found that the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation on reassessment following the guidelines and principles applicable in adjudging such a claim. The claimant was awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.41,256/- directing payment of 8% interest per annum on Rs24,525/- out of that sum as well till payment by the Board. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision by the Board. C.R.P No.2966 OF 2001 Page numbers 2. Notice was ordered to the claimant, but despite service, he has not entered appearance. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/Board. Compensation awarded is excessive and unreasonable and the impugned order does not reflect the determination of the compensation for the trees nor the sum was awarded towards the diminution of land value, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Remission of the case after setting aside the impugned order is canvassed by the counsel. Perusing the impugned order, it is seen that after examining the merit of the enhanced compensation claimed by the claimant with reference to the materials tendered, the learned District Judge had directed the claimant to file a calculation statement in accordance with the assessment made by the court in the matter of fixing compensation towards the cutting and removal of the trees and also for diminution of land value. Rubber trees alone were cut down from the property of the claimant for drawing the line. Board had assessed the compensation after deducting 60% of the income collected from the trees towards maintenance expenses, and it was accepted by the court below as well negativing the challenges of the claimant that only a lesser percentage ie, 30% alone was incurred by him towards maintenance expenses. The number of days of tapping and taking of latex from the trees in an year was also fixed at 100 C.R.P No.2966 OF 2001 Page numbers days negativing the case of the claimant that the trees gave yield for 160 days. So far as the claim under diminution of land value repelling the case of the claimant that the centage value of his property is Rs.10,000/-, the court has fixed it at Rs.1000/- only and injurious affectation was limited to 20%. On the above basis, with reference to the commission report prepared and filed by an advocate commissioner after conducting local inspection fixing the area affected by the drawing of the line, the court directed the claimant to file a calculation statement both in respect of the compensation payable to the trees cut and removed and also towards diminution of the land value affected by the drawing of overhead line. Calculation statement so filed by the claimant, it is seen from the order, was accepted by the Board. In fact, the order shows that an endorsement was made in that calculation statement by the counsel appearing for the Board that it has no objection. When such be the case, challenge raised against the award of enhanced compensation accepting the calculation statement over which the Board had no objection can never be impeached by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this court. Further more, perusing the impugned order, I find, the directions given by the court for calculating the enhanced compensation fixing the number of days of the trees, centage value of the property, percent to be taken towards the injurious affectation of C.R.P No.2966 OF 2001 Page numbers such land etc. cannot be viewed as improper or beyond the jurisdiction vested with that court. At any rate there is no jurisdictional infirmity in the order passed by the court below inviting the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this court. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv