IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 CRP.No. 413 of 2008() --------------------- OP(ELE.)114/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- ACHAMMA MATHEW, ELLAKAKUNNEL HOUSE, ARAKULAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.413 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2011. ORDER The order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha in O.P.(Ele.) No.114 of 2002 is under challenge. Learned Additional District Judge passed a preliminary award issuing certain directions to the parties based on which a final award was passed allowing enhanced compensation of `8,482/- and interest allowed on various amounts at 9% per annum. Learned counsel submitted that the award is excessive. 2. It is not disputed that 66 KV line was drawn through the property of respondent and for which various improvements were cut and removed. The age of the improvements, yield and value as assessed by the petitioner has been accepted by the learned Additional District Judge. 3. In the matter of deductions for maintenance and droppings, etc. petitioner deducted 60% for coffee and 43.75% for other produces. Learned Additional District Judge fixed the deduction for coffee at 30%, for coconut and rubber at 40% and for other produces at 25%. Having regard to the circumstances stated in the order I am not inclined to think that the said assessment is excessive calling for interference in revision at the instance of petitioner. C.R.P. No.413 of 2008 2 4. As against annuity adopted by petitioner (10%), learned Additional District Judge has fixed the 5% annuity based on the decision in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542). That also cannot be said to be excessive or illegal so that interference on the request of petitioner is needed. 5. On various amounts payable learned Additional District Judge has granted 9% interest per annum which in view of current rate of interest I do not find reason to interfere. The order under challenge at the instance of petitioner requires no interference. Civil revision is dismissed. I.A.No.1145 of 2008 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks