IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 769 of 2006() ------------------------------- OPELE.182/1998 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ---------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.S.E.BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS: ------------------------- 1. SRI.K.KUNJURAMAN NAIR, S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 43 YEARS, CHIRAVILAKATHU VEEDU, MARAYAMUTTOM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA. 2. SMT.GEETHA KUMARI, W/O.K.KUNJURAMAN NAIR AGED 36, CHIRAVILAKATHU VEEDU, MARAYAMUTTOM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.V.AJAKUMAR SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 769 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the II Addl. District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.(Ele.) 182/98 whereby the learned Judge has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.16674 with 7% interest. 2. Heard the counsel for both the sides. The petitioner is claiming a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- whereas the compensation awarded is only Rs.5,826/-. A perusal of the award would reveal that as per the Commissioner's report 20 rubber trees have been cut and removed. The Court also categorised the age of the trees and found that the total compensation they are entitled to under that head will be Rs.22,500/-. It is true that as per the decision of the Apex Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1) each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case. 3. A perusal of the award would reveal that about 48 rubber trees are cut and removed. The Court considered the CRP NO. 769 of 2006 -:2:- number of trees, the non yielding ones and general compensation. The Court has also considered the expenses necessary for maintaining the trees. So after taking into consideration all these matters the Court arrived at a compensation of Rs.22,500/-. I do not find any mistake committed by the Court below in that regard. So far as the land value is concerned the Court fixed the land value at Rs.2,500/- considering the affected areas as 8 cents of property fixed the diminution percentage at 20% and calculated the compensation. I do not find any mistake in that regard also committed by the Court below. Therefore the CRP lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-