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. 364 of 2006(E) -------------------------------- (AGAINST ORDER DTD. 25/02/2005 IN EOP.NO.58/2000 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR) .................... REV. PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, T.C.SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ANGAMALI. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (LA), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, S.C, K.S.E.B. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN O.P: -------------------------------------------------- K.M.MUHAMMED KASSIM, 49 YEARS, COMPANY EMPLOYEE, S/O.MOOSA, KULAKKARAYIL KUNNEL HOUSE, MADATHIMULLA, KAPRASSERY KARA, NEDUMBASSERY P.O., CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN, MR.K.K.ABU. 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. 364 of 2006 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010 O R D E R The respondent Kerala State Electricity Board before the court below has come up in revision against the order dated 25-2-2005 in E.O.P.No.58 of 2000 before the Additional District Court, N. Parur. 2. The petitioner utilized the property of the respondent for the purpose of drawing 110 KV electric line and in that process trees standing in the property of the respondent were cut and removed. The Board awarded a sum of Rs.10,500/- as compensation. Dissatisfied with the award, the respondent/claimant approached the District Court by filing E.O.P.No.58 of 2000. 3. The claimant took out a Commission from the court below and the Commissioner submitted a report. It is seen that the court has accepted the report, enhancing the compensation for yield trees cut and removed and granted Rs.29,091.74 as additional compensation for the same. CRP 364/06 2 Surprisingly, now it is seen that no amount for diminution of land value was granted court below. The ground on which the court below declined was that the Commissioner has not produced any plan showing the lie of land and passage of electric line through the property and therefore the respondent/claimant is not entitled to any amount under this head. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took objection that the yield taken from the trees cut and removed from the property is on the high side and there was no acceptable evidence in that regard, except the above plea. There was a Commissioner report and it was accepted by the court below. It appears that compensation granted is just and proper. Hence, no interference is required. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mn.