IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 CRP.No. 859 of 2005 --------------------- OPELE.217/1998 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PARAVUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN OP: -------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN O.P: --------------------------------- VASU, S/O. KANNAN, KODIYAPPATTUKUDI, ONAMBILLY, EDAVOOR P.O., KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.859 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order dated 31.3.2003 in O.P.No.217 of 1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, North Paravur. The above O.P. was filed by the respondent claiming enhanced compensation for loss and damages caused by the drawing of the overhead lines through his property situate in survey No.481/16A of Koovappady Village. The application was filed under Section 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act. Petitioner/respondent in the O.P., Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, admittedly, drew overhead lines through the property of the petitioner having an extent of 1.24 acres for the purpose of a 110KV line. Towards the cutting and removal of the valuable trees which included 22 yielding coconut trees, aged 20 years, the Board assessed and fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.96,275/- and it was accordingly awarded to the respondent. Impeaching the compensation provided as inadequate and C.R.P.No.859 of 2005 2 unreasonable and seeking enhanced compensation the above petition was filed. The Board resisted the application contending that reasonable compensation had been paid to the claimant. 2. In the enquiry on the claim petition no material was produced by both sides. Learned District Judge taking note that the Board had assessed and fixed compensation at 10% annuity in respect of the trees cut and removed, following the guidelines given in Kumba Amma v. KSEB (2000 (1) KLT 542) refixed the compensation adopting 5% annuity of return for such trees. On such reassessment it was found that the claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.80,104.80/-. However, court allowed such compensation after deducting the sum due as timber value as it was of the view that the amount thereof has to be reduced. The view so taken by the court is apparently erroneous as the claimant is entitled to have timber trees cut and removed as per the Manual of Tree Cutting Compensation. Since there is no challenge on the reduction so made by the respondent/claimant, in the revision filed by the Board, interference on that count is not called for. Whatever that be, C.R.P.No.859 of 2005 3 after making such reduction the Board has fixed enhanced compensation at Rs.72,094/- directing the Board to pay such compensation with 9% interest from the date of cutting of the trees till realization. No tenable ground has been brought to my notice to impeach the correctness of the enhanced compensation so awarded by the court below on having a reassessment of the compensation in accordance with the guidelines in the decision referred to above. I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the court below in awarding of enhanced compensation. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-