IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 1884 of 2002 ------------------------------ (ELE.OP.NO.657/1999 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- K.S.E.BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. C.K. KARUNAKARAN, S.C, K.S.E.B. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- C.V.GOURI, W/O. DEVADAS, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, AMBILAD DESOM. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- C.M.Appln.No.4570 of 2002 in C.R.P.No.1884 of 2002 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11 th day of March, 2010 O R D E R The revision is directed against an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Thalassery in O.P.(Ele.)No.657/99 awarding enhanced compensation to the respondent for the trees cut and removed and for injurious affection suffered for the drawing of overhead electric lines through her property. The respondent is hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant'. The revision has been filed with a petition to condone the delay of 369 days. Though notice was ordered to the claimant on the delay petition, despite steps taken, service could not be effected so far. 2. I heard the counsel for the revision petitioner, Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') to consider whether C.R.P.No.1884 of 2002 :: 2 :: further steps against the respondent is essential for disposal of the revision on merits, since the revision had been filed nearly eight years ago. To consider that question, the merit of the revision filed impeaching the propriety and correctness of the order impugned was also considered. 3. The Board had awarded compensation of Rs.21,627/- towards the loss suffered by the claimant for the trees cut and removed from her property. She has claimed enhanced compensation of Rs.5,13,373/-. Such claims were made in respect of the trees gut and removed and also towards diminution of land value by the drawing up of the lines. Admittedly, the Board has given compensation only for the loss suffered by the trees cut and removed. It is also not in dispute that the Board has assessed such compensation adopting annuity return of 10%. The learned District Judge, following the guidelines in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. {2000(1) C.R.P.No.1884 of 2002 :: 3 :: K.L.T. 542} re-assessed the compensation payable adopting annuity return at 5%. On the basis of a commission report collected diminution of land value suffered by the claimant by the drawing up of the overhead lines was considered. After entering a finding that 25 cents of property has suffered injurious affection by the lines drawn to the extent of 20% both sides were directed to file statements to refix the compensation. The claimant alone filed a statement which was accepted without any objection by the Board. On the basis of the statement filed by the claimant which had been accepted by the Board as correct enhanced compensation was awarded by the learned District Judge. That order is challenged in the revision. 4. When the order has been passed on consent, needless to state, no further challenge is entertainable by way of an appeal or revision. Learned counsel for the Board submitted that there C.R.P.No.1884 of 2002 :: 4 :: was an error apparent in the order inasmuch as the claimant had sought for only a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards enhanced compensation for 7 yielding coconut trees which had been cut and removed. After giving credit to the compensation already paid by the Board on the above claim she was entitled to Rs.14,000/- only as enhanced compensation for the trees even if her claim was conceded in toto, submits the counsel. The court below , according to the counsel, has awarded an excess amount as enhanced compensation for the trees, over and above what was claimed by the claimant. Towards injurious affection of her land, a sum of Rs.7,500/- alone was awarded as enhanced compensation by the court, and the rest was in respect of the trees cut and removed, and to that extent the order of the court below requires modification, is the submission of the counsel. I do not find any merit in the submission as there is no material to conclude only 7 yielding coconut trees C.R.P.No.1884 of 2002 :: 5 :: were cut and removed from the property of the claimant and the amount awarded by the Board earlier related to such trees alone. Whatever that be, if at all there was any error apparent on the face of the record, the Board should have moved a review petition within the time provided by law. At this fag end, i.e. nearly 8 years after the filing of the revision, the ground canvassed to impugn the order which had been passed on consent cannot be entertained. There is no merit in the revision. The revision and the petition for condoning the delay are dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//