IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 1146 of 2004(D) ---------------------- O.P.(ELE) NO.91/2002 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------ P.R.MOHANAN NAIR, S/O. RAMAN NAIR, AGED 47 YEARS, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, EDAYARIKKAPPUZHA P.O., KANGAZHA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN SRI.SANTHOSH MODAYIL THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 1146 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the 1st Addl. District Judge, Kottayam in O.P.(E.A.)91/02 whereby the Court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.6,779/-. The Court below has granted Rs.4941/- as additional compensation for trees cut and the balance amount for the diminution in land value. It is true that the Court below has applied the dictum laid down in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542) and has taken the annuity factor at 5% but a perusal of the award would show that the Court has taken into consideration the age of the trees, the duration, capacity of their yielding, the costs of cultivation and other ingredients and thereafter had applied the dictum laid down in the said decision. The Apex Court in the decision reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1) has held that there cannot be a uniform CRP NO.1146 of 2004 -:2:- application of the annuity factor and each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case. Here I find the Court below had taken into consideration all the relevant materials for the purpose of fixing the annuity return and arrived at a decision. Similarly, the diminution in land value also the Court did not blindly accept what the claimant has contended and fixed a reasonable price for the land and took the diminution in land value at 10% and calculated the compensation. The award does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Therefore this C.R.P. is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-