IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 2236 of 2001() ---------------------- OP.33/2000 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, K.S.E.B TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR K.S.E.B. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- T.M.YOUSAFF, S/O HAMSA, MARAVAN HOUSE, MUTHIYANGA P.O, THALASSERY. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- C.R.P No.2236 OF 2001 -------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March 2010 ORDER The revision is filed by the respondent in O.P No.33 of 2000 challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Thalassery awarding enhanced compensation to the claimant/petitioner in that O.P. Petitioner is the Kerala State Electricity Board hereinafter referred to as the Board. For the purpose of drawing 220KV high tension electric line through the property of the claimant, some trees were cut down. Towards compensation thereof the Board paid a sum of Rs.3,576/- to the claimant. Dissatisfied with the sum paid, the claimant filed the above O.P for enhanced compensation. That petition was considered along with similar claims raised by some adjoining owners of property through which also the line had been drawn by the Board for the very same purpose. 2. After enquiry, the learned District Judge awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.5,056/- with interest. Now the revision is filed against that order that too with a petition to condone delay of 32 days. Though notice on the delay petition was issued to the respondent, service could not be effected so far. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner to examine whether the revision has to be entertained condoning delay though notice C.R.P No.2236 OF 2001 Page numbers had not been served on the respondent as the revision has been pending before this court for the last more than nine years. From the submissions made, and perusing the order impugned, I find no interference is called for in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction as the sum awarded as enhanced compensation is very meagre. Admittedly the Board has assessed the compensation towards the trees cut down adopting annuity return of 10%. The learned District Judge reassessed the compensation adopting annuity return of 5% following the guidelines given in "Kumba Amma v Kerala State Electricity Board" (2000(1) KLT 542). So far as fixation of compensation over the trees cut down, no uniform rule is applicable and a little bit of arbitrariness is inescapable. Having regard to the fact that the enhanced compensation awarded is only Rs.5,056/- and such order has been passed on the materials tendered in the case which were found creditworthy to the learned District Judge, I find this is not a fit case where exercise of revisional jurisdiction is called for. Delay petition and the revision are dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE