IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 878 of 2008(F) --------------------------------- O.P(ELE.).NO.39/2005 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, S.C, K.S.E.B. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- SUMANGALA VEENADHARAN, ERAVIKKATTU CHIRAYIL, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. BY ADV. MR. M.K.ABOOBACKER. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= C.R.P. No. 878 of 2008 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010 O R D E R Aggrieved by the order dated 26-2-2008 in O.P.(Ele.) No.39 of 2005 before the Additional District Court, Alappuzha, the Board has come up in revision. 2. The petitioner utilized the property of the respondent for the purpose of drawing 110 KV high tension line and in that process trees were cut and removed. The Board awarded a sum of Rs.11,594/- as compensation. Complaining inadequacy of the compensation, the claimant approached the Addl. District Court, Thodupuzha under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. 3. The court below found that the yield taken from the trees cut and removed was on the lower side. Taking into account of the probable yield of the trees, enhanced compensation of Rs.4,294/- was granted in respect of the trees cut and removed from the property. The court below found that five cents of property was affected for drawing of CRP 878/08 2 the line and taking Rs.15,000/- as market value of the land, Rs.22,500/- was granted towards diminution in land value. Considering the nature of the line drawing and extent of property factor, I find that the enhancement of compensation granted is extremely reasonable. There is no justification in interfering with the enhanced compensation given by the court below for the trees cut and removed,since it is fair and reasonable. Hence, no interference is called for. This petition is without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mn.