IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 314 of 2008() --------------------- OP.148/2005 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPR, BY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. PULIKOOL ABOOBACKER, SC, KSEB SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. JOSE JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 44 YEARS, UDUMPANATTU HOUSE, P.O., MEENMUTTY, NELLIPOYIL VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. LUCY, W/O.JOSE, AGED 40 YEARS, UDUMPANATTU HOUSE, P.O., MEENMUTTY, NELLIPOYIL VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN FOR R1,2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON 25/11/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS J., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No.314 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of November, 2011 ORDER This C.R.P. is filed by the respondent in O.P.(Ele.) No.148 of 2005 on the file of II Addl. District Court, Kozhikode. The respondents herein are the petitioners in that O.P. which was filed for enhancement of compensation. 2. For the purpose of drawing electric line, action was taken by the Board as empowered under Section 5 of the Indian Electricity Act and Indian Telegraph Act 1885 to cut and remove certain improvements in the property owned by the respondents. Rs.52,245/- was awarded as compensation for the improvements cut from the property of the petitioners in the O.P. The petitioners filed O.P. claiming enhanced compensation. The respondent filed counter stating that they have paid reasonable compensation and C.R.P. No.314 OF 2008 :2: that the petitioners are not entitled to get any enhanced compensation. The Court below on considering the evidence awarded Rs.41,530/- as enhanced compensation for the improvements with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of cutting trees. Against that order the respondent filed this C.R.P. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 4. There is no dispute that 6 bearing coconut trees, 79 bearing arecanut trees and 6 bearing pepper vines were cut and removed for the purpose of drawing electric line through the property of the respondents. The parties do not dispute age, yield and value of crops shown in the detailed valuation statement. The Additional District Judge on applying principles laid down in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) K.L.T. 542 F.B.) assessed the enhanced compensation for the improvements as Rs.41,530/-. 5. Relying on Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha (2007(3) KLT 1) learned counsel for the Board contended that C.R.P. No.314 OF 2008 :3: determination of compensation made by the Court below is not in consonance with the principles and guidelines given by the apex Court and so much so, the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge suffers from jurisdictional infirmity and thus liable to be interfered with in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Perusing the impugned order, it is seen that the Board had assessed the compensation towards the value of trees cut and removed at 10% annuity and the Court below taking note of the principles laid down in Kumba Amma v. Kerala State Electricity Board (2000(1) K.L.T. 542) passed by this Court, reassessed the compensation payable for fixing such compensation at 5% annuity. I find nothing in the decision rendered by the apex court in Livisha's case (supra) to hold that the assessment of the compensation following the principles laid down in Kumba Amma's case (supra) cannot be made applicable depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The apex Court has held that compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees are concerned, C.R.P. No.314 OF 2008 :4: the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course in a case where it is shown that fixation of compensation at 5% annuity would cause prejudice or injury to any of the parties involved depending upon the facts and circumstances in the case, a different yardstick can be applied for. No such special circumstance is made out in the present case to hold that the principles laid down in Kumba Amma's case are inapplicable to the case. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Court below. Accordingly this C.R.P. is dismissed as it is without any merits. There is no order as to costs. M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/