IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 CRP.No. 1230 of 2004() ---------------------- OP(ELE.)430/1995 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, K.S.E. BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SC, K.S.E.B SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS: ------------------------- 1. PUSHAPABALAN, W/O. BALAN M.NAIR, C/O. M/S. ROCKWELL ENGINEERING CO., P.O. KALAMASSERY-683 104. 2. DEEPAK MENON, W/O. M.VIJAYAN MENON, C/O. M/S. ROCKWELL ENGINEERING CO., P.O. KALAMASSERY-683 104. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. -------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.1230 OF 2004 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008. O R D E R In this revision filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board, the Board challenges the order passed by the District Judge, Ernakulam in O.P.(Ele)No.430/1995 awarding compensation under Section 51 of the Electricity Act read with Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885. 2. On 12.10.1992, the Board had cut and removed valuable fruit bearing trees and other trees belonging to the claimants situated in Thrikkakara north village for the purpose of drawing a 11 K.V. high tension electric line. The affected area was 1 acre and 13 cents, out of the garden land having a total extent of 3 acres 67 cents. Relying on Ext.P4 judgment, the court below fixed the land value at Rs.98,800/= per are i.e., Rs.40,000/= per cent. Relying on a decision of the Full Bench of this Court, the District Court fixed the enhanced value of yielding trees at Rs.4,711.43. A sum of Rs.60,000/= was awarded as value of the land where the towers were erected. The claimants were thus held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,12,000/= with interest at the rate of 6% CRP.NO.1230/04 . 2 per annum from the date of cutting till the date of payment. The said order is assailed in the revision filed by the KSEB. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the court below has not given the basis for fixing the compensation for the yielding trees at Rs.9,422.86. The learned counsel also submitted that the total compensation awarded by the court below is excessive. 4. It is true that the court below has not given detailed reasons for giving enhancement at Rs.4,711.43. But considering the large extent of land affected by the cutting of the trees by drawl of the line, I am not inclined to interfere with the award for the mere reason that no reasons are stated for giving enhancement to the extent at Rs.4,711.43. With regard to the other heads of compensation, the learned Additional District Judge has relied on materials produced before court to arrive at the compensation. I do not find any good ground for interference with the order passed by the court below. This revision is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR,JUDGE. cl CRP.NO.1230/04 . 3 cl