IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 CRP.No. 377 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/12/2007 IN OPEA.74/2005 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER: ----------------------------- ROY, S/O.JOSEPH, KILIKKIDAYIL FROM PARIMANATH, AROOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT: ------------------------ THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.377 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st May, 2008. O R D E R Petitioner is the petitioner in O.P.(E.A.) No.74/2005, on the file of Additional District Court, Alappuzha. It was a petition filed under Sections 10 to 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act. Respondent had drawn Kalamassery- Aroor 110 KV line over the property of the petitioner, and awarded a compensation of Rs.9666/=. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, petitioner filed the petition claiming enhanced compensation. The learned District Judge found on the evidence of Exts.A1 and A2, and relied on the decisions of this Court in Kumba Amma v. KSEB (2000 (1) KLT 542), and the Apex Court in Livisha v. KSEB (2007 (3) KLT 1), and granted enhanced land value at the rate of Rs.30,000/=, and Rs.6444/= for the coconut trees. Dissatisfied with the enhancement, the said order is challenged by filing this petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. CRP.No.377/2008 2 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that court below should have relied on Ext.A1 and granted enhanced compensation. It was further submitted that under Ext.A1, six cents was sold for Rs.14 lakhs, and the prevalent market value of the properties are Rs.75,000/= per cent. The court below found that Ext.A1 was of the year 2006, and the value to be fixed is as on 1994. The court below, after considering the evidence, fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.20,000/= per cent and taking a diminution of 30%, awarded a compensation of Rs.30,000/=. So also, for the value of coconut trees, compensation was enhanced to Rs.6444/=. The argument of the learned counsel is that court below should have accepted the statement furnished by the petitioner, where 5% return was claimed and total claim was for Rs.53,610/=. The court below for valid reasons refused to accept the same, and granted enhancement of Rs.36,444/=. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in granting the enhanced compensation, in the light of the settled legal position. Revision Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. JUDGE nj.