IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 147 of 2008() --------------------- OPELE.17/1997 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KALPETTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- MOIDU, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 52 YEARS, PULAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANIYAMBETTA P.O., VYTHIRI TALUK, WYANADU. ADV. SRI. BALAGOPALAN A.R. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2011, THE COURT ON 03/12/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS J., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No.147 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2011 ORDER This C.R.P. is filed by the respondent/K.S.E.B. in O.P. (Ele.) No.17 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Wyanadu, Kalpetta. The respondent herein was the petitioner in that O.P., which was filed by him under Sec.51 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and 42 and 60 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act 1948. 2. The revision petitioner for the purpose of drawing 220 K.V. electric line to Kaniymbetta Sub station, yielding coconut trees, arecanut trees, pepper wines, mango trees etc. were cut and removed from the property of the petitioner and Rs.15,345/- was given to the petitioner as compensation. Due to the drawing of C.R.P. No.147 of 2008 :2: electric line, land value of the property of the petitioner was diminished. Being dissatisfied with the compensation granted, the petitioner filed the O.P. No. 17 of 1997 for enhanced compensation. 3. The respondent filed counter stating that they have paid reasonable compensation to the petitioner. 4. In the Additional District Court, Exts.A1, A2, B1 to B6 and C1 were marked. The Additional District Judge on considering the evidence on record, awarded Rs.33,666/- as enhanced compensation for the yielding trees cut and removed and Rs.10,000/- was awarded as compensation for the diminution in land value. Thus in total, the enhanced compensation awarded was Rs.43,666/- and 12% interest was ordered to be paid from the date of cutting of the trees. Against that order the revision petitioner filed this C.R.P. 5. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 6. Relying on Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha (2007(3) KLT 1) learned counsel for the Board contended that determination of compensation made by the Court below is not in C.R.P. No.147 of 2008 :3: consonance with the principles and guidelines given by the apex Court and so much so, the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge suffers from jurisdictional infirmity and thus liable to be interfered with in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Perusing the impugned order, it is seen that the Board had assessed the compensation towards the value of trees cut and removed at 10% annuity and the Court below taking note of the principles laid down in Kumba Amma v. Kerala State Electricity Board (2000(1) K.L.T. 542) passed by this Court, reassessed the compensation payable for fixing such compensation at 5% annuity. I find nothing in the decision rendered by the apex court in Livisha's case (supra) to hold that the assessment of the compensation following the principles laid down in Kumba Amma's case (supra) cannot be made applicable depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The apex Court has held that compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees are concerned, the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each C.R.P. No.147 of 2008 :4: case. Of course in a case where it is shown that fixation of compensation at 5% annuity would cause prejudice or injury to any of the parties involved depending upon the facts and circumstances in the case, a different yardstick can be applied for. No such special circumstance is made out in the present case to hold that the principles laid down in Kumba Amma's case are inapplicable to the case. 8. In the Commission report, it is stated that the area affected due to the drawal of electric line is 7.7 cents on each side. But the learned Additional District Jude took the total area injuriously affected as 10 cents only. The land value assessed by the learned Additional District Judge is Rs.4,000/- per cent and the diminution in land value is assessed as 25% and the compensation thus assessed for diminution in land value as Rs.10,000/-. Since the Additional District Judge has awarded only a reasonable compensation, I find no reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation. But the interest awarded by the learned Additional District Judge as 12% is excessive. Considering the facts and C.R.P. No.147 of 2008 :5: circumstances of the case, awarding of 9% interest on the above amount would be just and reasonable. Accordingly this C.R.P. is allowed in part: While confirming the order regarding compensation of Rs.43,666/-, interest is reduced to 9% from 12%. There is no order as to costs. M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/