IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1015 of 2005 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.9.2004 IN ELE.O.P.NO.206/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, THODUPUSHA. REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------------------ SHERRY, S/O. THOMAS, AGED 32 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, THOMAS, S/O. ITTIYAVIRA, KANNATTU HOUSE, ANJIRI, ALAKODE VILLAGE,THODUPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: I.A.NO.2351/2005 INC.R.P.NO.1015/2005 DISMISSED 10/1/2008 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1015 OF 2005 F -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th January, 2008 O R D E R This Revision is filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board challenging the award passed by the Court of the Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha in Ele.O.P.No.206 of 2001. For drawing Karimkunnam – Moolamattom 66 KV line, trees were cut and removed from the property belonging to the respondent. The Board paid a compensation of Rs.61,343/-. Petition was filed by the respondent under Sections 10 to 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Sections 19 and 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 42 of the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, claiming a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as additional compensation. As per the award passed by the court below, additional compensation of Rs.1,47,256/- was granted. 2. The court below did not grant any compensation on account of diminution of land value on the ground that no evidence was adduced by the respondent herein. So also, the court below did not interfere with the yield assessed by the Board. 3. As regards value of agricultural produces, the court below fixed C.R.P. NO.1015 OF 2005 F :: 2 :: the price of coffee at Rs.30/- per kilogram as against the price fixed by the Board at Rs.15/- per kilogram. It cannot be said that the price fixed by the court below is on the higher side. The court below did not fully rely on Ext.A1 produced by the respondent to show the price of coffee, but an average price for a reasonable period was taken by the court below and the price was fixed at Rs.30/- per kilogram. The claim made by the respondent for enhancement of the price of rubber, coconut, mango and arecanut was not accepted by the court below. 4. The Board had made a deduction at 60% as agricultural expenses for coffee and rubber and at 43.75% for other agricultural produces. The court below rightly held that deduction made by the Board is on the higher side. It was found that the respondent himself was doing agricultural operations. The court below fixed the deduction at 40% for coconut and rubber, at 35% for arecanut, at 30% for coffee and at 25% for other improvements. Following the decision of the Full Bench in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B (2000 (1) KLT 542), rate of return was taken as 5% in the process of fixing multiplier. 5. The court below has considered the relevant facts and fixed the compensation on the basis of the materials on record. It cannot be said that the compensation so fixed is on the higher side. I am of the view C.R.P. NO.1015 OF 2005 F :: 3 :: that interference is not called for in this Civil Revision Petition. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/