IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2006 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1928 CRP.No. 789 of 2006(B) ----------------------------- OPELE.350/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ----------------------------------- SRI.T.S.GOPINATHAN, THATHAMANGALAM, H.NO.VIII/14, KUMBALANGHI, KOCHI-7. BY S.C. SRI. C.K. KARUNAKARAN. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 789 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Ernakulam in awarding a total compensation of Rs.15,877/-. It is true that the Court below has relied upon the decision of this Court reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542) and applied the annuity factor at 5% and awarded an additional compensation of Rs.8,377/-. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1) the Court cannot apply a uniform annuity factor but it must be only on the facts and circumstances of that case. 2. It is seen from the award that there are 12 trees cut down from the property and the Court below has taken note of that factor and had arrived at a decision. It is also recorded by the Court below that in the revised valuation statement there was only a formal objection and not a CRP NO. 789 of 2006 -:2:- serious objection. Similarly for the drawl of line an additional amount of Rs.7,500/- is granted for the diminution in land value. The Court below did not consider the contention of the claimant but awarded a reasonable amount on that ground also. Therefore I do not find that the award suffers from any serious infirmity. Therefore the C.R.P. is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-