IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933 CRP.No. 816 of 2006() ------------------------------- E.OP.165/1993 of DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------ KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN E.OP. -------------------------------------------------------- P. SATHYABHAMA, W/O.ANANTHAN PILLAI, VADAKKETHIL VEEDU, THACHINGANADAM P.O., NENMINI AMSOM, THACHINGANADAM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.816 of 2006 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2011. ORDER This civil revision is filed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Manjeri in E.O.P. No. 165 of 1993. 2. High tension line was drawn through the property of respondent for which various improvements were cut and removed. Being dissatisfied with compensation awarded by petitioner, respondent filed E.O.P. No.165 of 1993. Regarding the adjoining properties, respondent filed certain other petitions also before the learned District Judge. Learned District Judge disposed of all the petitions by a common order. The order in E.O.P.No.165 of 1993 is under challenge in this proceeding at the instance of the Kerala State Electricity Board. It is contended that compensation awarded by the learned District Judge is excessive. 3. Learned counsel for respondent would contend that compensation awarded in the connected cases has been confirmed by this Court as per order dated 23.02.2010 in C.R.P.No.898 of 2006. CRP No.816/2006 2 4. It is seen from the order under challenge that so far as value of improvements is concerned, taking 5% as the annuity (see Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542) learned District Judge awarded additional compensation of `5,580/- in respect of yielding trees. So far as compensation for diminished land value is concerned, land value is fixed at `1,000/- per cent (as on the date of tree cutting). Taking into account various aspects, learned District Judge fixed the extent of land affected by the drawal of line as 35 cents and 25% of the land value as the compensation for diminution of land value. Thus `8,750/- was awarded as compensation for diminished land value. 5. It is seen from the order dated 23.02.2010 of this Court in C.R.P.No.898 of 2006 arising from E.O.P.No.164 of 1993 (one of the connected cases) that compensation awarded in that case on the same basis was accepted by this Court. In view of that and considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that no interference is required with the order under challenge. Civil revision is accordingly dismissed. I.A.No.3009 of 2006 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks