IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.NO. 448 OF 2007() --------------------- {OPELE.202/1998 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT IN O.P.: --------------------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHPURAM, BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN O.P.: ---------------------------------- K.T.MATHEWS, S/O.LATE K.V.THOMAS, KUTTIKKATTU HOUSE, VAZHAR MANGALAM, CHENGANNUR. ADV. SRI.M.N.MATHEW THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- C.M.Appln.No.511 of 2007 in C.R.P.No.448 of 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010 O R D E R The revision has been filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board {hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'} challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mavelikkara in O.P.(Ele.)No.203/98 awarding enhanced compensation to the respondent/claimant towards the loss and injuries suffered by him on account of the drawing of electric line through his property. The revision has been filed with a petition to condone the delay of 596 days. 2. Notice given on the delay petition the respondent has entered appearance. Counsel on both sides were heard on the merit of the revision as well. 3. It is noticed that the amount awarded as enhanced compensation by the court below is very meagre i.e., Rs.5260/-. The lines have been drawn to facilitate the opening of 110 KV Sub Station at Chengannur. Evidently, the proceedings before the court below commenced at least a decade ago, and the cutting of the trees from the property of the claimant giving rise to the claimant under the proceedings C.R.P.No.448 of 2007 :: 2 :: much earlier. It is also seen that some yielding and non- yielding trees were cut and removed from the property of the claimant. The Board has assessed the compensation adopting annuity return of 10%. The court below, taking note of the guidelines in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. {2000(1) K.L.T. 542} adopted annuity return of 5% and re-assessed the compensation payable for the trees cut and removed. On no account the compensation so awarded can be considered as excessive and unreasonable. There is no merit in the revision. The petition for condonation of delay and the revision are dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//