IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 146 of 2004() --------------------- OP EA.63/2002 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------- OOMMEN MATHEW, PALAVILAYIL, PANAYIL MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jma K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- CRP No.146 of 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 ORDER This revision has come up in the defect list for the reason that the respondent has been reported to have passed away. However, no steps have been taken by the revision petitioner to implead the legal representatives of the deceased respondent so far. This CRP need not be treated as defective for the reason that the same can be decided, in favour of the respondent. 2. The revision is filed against an order of the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P.(.E.A.) No.63/2002 filed by the respondent claiming compensation for losses suffered by him due to the drawing of a 220 KV electric line from Kayamkulam to Edamon. Consequent to the drawing of the electric line, two cashew trees and one tamarind tree were cut and removed from his property comprised in sy.No.218/9 of Palamel Village. He claimed compensation for the said loss. The petition has been allowed by the court and an amount of Rs.2547/- has been CRP No.146 of 2004 2 granted with interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of cutting of the trees till the date of realization. It is the said order that is under challenge by the revision petitioner. 3. I have heard Sri.Millu Dandapani who appears for the revision petitioner and perused the records of the case. 4. On going through the award, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the compensation that has been granted by the court below. It is not disputed that two cashew trees and one tamarind tree were actually cut and removed for the drawing of the electric line. The compensation awarded is reasonable and is only justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the above CRP is dismissed. No costs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/