IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 2482 of 2000(I) --------------------------------- OP.364/1998 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, VYDHYUDHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. BY ADV. MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- T. GOVINDAN, S/O.KUNHAPPA, THYKKANDY HOUSE, MANIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O. CHEKKIKULAM, KANNUR DT. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.2482 OF 2000 -------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- ORDER The revision arises from the order dated 13/03/2000 in O.P No.364 of 1998 passed by the Additional District judge, Thalasserry. The above O.P was filed by the respondent seeking enhanced compensation for the damages caused over his property on account of drawing of overhead lines through that property by cutting and removing of trees. The O.P was considered along with some other petitions and a common order was passed by the learned District Judge. Revisions filed against under the common order in respect of the other O.P have already been disposed by this court. The order was modified only with respect to the scaling down of interest awarded by the learned District Judge from 12% per annum to 9% per annum and in all other respect the compensation fixed in the petitions was upheld. C.R.P.No.2482 OF 2000 Page numbers 2. Notice issued to the respondent repeatedly returned unserved and then substituted service by publication was ordered. Despite such substituted service, respondent has not entered appearance. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner/Board at length and perusing the impugned order challenged in the revision, I find the same principle followed in the previous revisions in respect of the petitions covered under the common order has to be adopted in the present case also. The present revision is disposed of holding that the rate of interest payable on the compensation adjudged by the court below will be at the rate of 9% per annum instead of 12% per annum and in all other respect the order of the court below is upheld. Revision is disposed as indicated above. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv