IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 65 of 2007() -------------------- OPELE.182/2004 of ADL.D.C. & MACT,THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------- SRI.M.N.SIVARAMAN, RES.AT MELOTTU HOUSE, ERATTAYAR KARA, KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. ADV. SRI.S.K.MURALEEDHARA KAIMAL FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.182/2007 IN C.R.P.NO.65/2007 DISMISSED. 8.2.2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.65 OF 2007 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010 O R D E R The revision is directed against the order dated 28.6.2006 in O.P.(Ele.)No.182 of 2004 passed by the District Judge, Thodupuzha. The above O.P. was filed by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant' seeking enhanced compensation for the trees cut and removed and also damages caused to his property by the drawing of overhead lines by the Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred as the 'Board'. The claimant had raised a claim for a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- as enhanced compensation. The Board resisted that application contending that adequate and reasonable compensation had been paid to the claimant. In the enquiry over the claim, Exts.A1 to A7 were exhibited by the claimant. For the respondent Board Ext.B1 valuation statement was marked. On the materials placed and after hearing the counsel on both sides, the court below awarded a CRP.65/07 2 sum of Rs.13,455/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 5.7.2002, the date of cutting and removing of the trees till the date of realisation. So far as the sum of Rs.8,188/- which had been paid earlier by the Board, interest was directed to be paid at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of cutting 5.7.2002 till the date of such payment 12.4.2004. Enhanced compensation as above with direction to pay interest as indicated above, is challenged in the revision. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. The grievance canvassed by the learned counsel for the Board is that though no evidence was let in by the claimant to substantiate any of the claims canvassed for enhanced compensation over and above the sum fixed by the Board, the court has arbitrarily reassessed the compensation, that too, reducing the percentage of the maintenance cost which had been assessed by the Board in assessing the compensation. In the case of assessment of compensation due for the cutting and removal of jack tree, the Board had taken into account 50% of the maintenance cost with respect to the yield from that tree for CRP.65/07 3 fixing the compensation payable. A sum of Rs.1,012/- was fixed towards compensation for the tree with reference to the yield assessed by the Board. Reducing the maintenance cost fixed by the Board, the court has fixed a sum of Rs.1,500/- as the compensation payable. Maintenance cost assessed by the Board at 50% was deducted by the court at 30% without any data is the ground urged by the counsel to contend that the interference with the assessment made by the court is not proper. I do not find any merit in the submission. So far as a jack tree is concerned, normally, no expenditure towards maintaining that tree is required. At the most, some deductions can be made with reference to the dropping and nothing else. Further more, the deduction made with respect to the maintenance cost, where it was prima facie satisfied that the deduction made at 50% by the Board was not correct, cannot at all be found fault with. Similarly in the case of pepper vines also, the maintenance cost assessed by the Board was modified by the court. There is no data as to the extent of the land nor any case for the Board that the claimant had to engage some other person to maintain his pepper vines, which CRP.65/07 4 had been cut and removed for drawing the overhead lines. It is also noticed that 18 pepper vines had been cut and removed for drawing such lines. The deduction made by the court with respect to the maintenance cost fixed by the Board in the case of pepper vines was not proper. The Board had assessed annuity return at 5% to fix the compensation payable. The court, following the guidelines and principles in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542 (FB)) has reassessed the compensation at 5% annuity return. True, the guidelines enunciated by this Court in the above decision have been found to be inapplicable in all types of cases. But in respect of a small tract of land, and that too in assessing compensation with respect to 18 pepper vines and one jack tree, the principles laid down in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha ((2007) 6 SCC 792) by the apex court regarding the factors like situs of the land, how far and what extent the injury had been caused by the drawing of the overhead lines to such land etc. are not relevant. Further more, in the present case, it is also noticed that the claim for the diminution of land value on account of the drawing of the overhead lines canvassed by the claimant CRP.65/07 5 was found against and there is no challenge against the rejection of that claim. Taking that also into account, with reference to the meagre sum awarded as compensation, that too, a sum of Rs.13,455/-, I find that the challenges canvassed in the revision contending that it is excessive and unreasonable cannot be appreciated. I do not find any impropriety in the assessment and awarding of the enhanced compensation ordered by the court below. Revision lacks merit and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp