IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 169 of 2008() --------------------- OPELE.154/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: IST RESPONDENT -------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ----------------------- 1. LEKHA MURALEEDHARAN, W/O.MURALEEDHARAN, ASWATHY BHAVAN, KANJOOR, CHEPPAD P.O. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.THANKAPPAN, ASWATHY BHAVAN, KANJOOR, CHEPPAD P.O. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 169 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge-I,Mavelikara, in OP (Ele) 154/02. By the said award, the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 16,520/- with 6% interest. It is against that decision, the Power Grid Corporation has come up with the present revision. 2. A perusal of para 16 of the award would reveal that the court has not only taken into consideration the factum laid down in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. [2000 (1) KLT 542] but it has also taken into consideration the age, future yielding capacity, its utility and value of commodity and thereafter had come to a conclusion that an additional amount of Rs.2,120/- has to be granted as enhanced compensation for the trees cut. The dictum laid down by the Apex court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] only lays down the principle that there cannot be a uniform applicability and that each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case. But here it can be seen that various other factors are taken C.R.P. NO. 169/08 2 into consideration to apply the dictum in Kumba Amma’s case. So far as the diminution of the land value is concerned, the court found that the affected area is only 4 cents and that it is the area covered by the tower and therefore calculated 60% as the diminution of land value fixed the percentage value as Rs.6,000/- per cent and awarded compensation of Rs.14,400/-. One cannot hold that it is arbitrary or without consideration. Therefore the award passed by the court below does not suffer from any infirmity. Therefore, the civil revision petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO. 169/08 3