IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 206 of 2005 OP.ELE.8/2001 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ------------------ THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDHEEN, SC FOR KSEB SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------- TOMY MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 37 YEARS, PULICKAL (H), PANAMKOOTY KARA, KONNATHADY VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.SATHEESH. M.KUMAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: I.A.NO.559/2005 IN C.R.P.NO.206/2005 DISMISSED 8/1/2008 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 206 OF 2005 F -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th January, 2008 O R D E R Aggrieved by the award passed in Ele.O.P.No.8 of 2001, on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha, the Kerala State Electricity Board has filed this Revision. 2. For drawing Koothumkal-Panakutty 110 KV line, large number of trees were cut from the property belonging to the respondent. The Board paid a compensation of Rs.88,530/- to the respondent. Ele.O.P.No.8 of 2001 was filed by the respondent claiming an additional compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. The court below awarded an additional compensation of Rs.93,333/- with interest at 9% per annum from 20.6.1999 till realisation. 3. The court below did not grant any compensation on the ground of diminution of land value since, the respondent did not adduce any evidence on that aspect. The yield assessed by the Board was also not interfered with by the court below on the same ground. As far as price fixed by the Board is concerned, the court below, relying on the documents produced before it, came to the conclusion that price of C.R.P.NO.206 OF 2005 :: 2 :: Rs.15/- per Kg. for coffee granted by the Board is less and the price was fixed at Rs.30/- per Kg., as against the value of Rs.60/- mentioned in Ext.A2. For coconut, price was fixed at Rs.5/- per nut as this value was adopted in all other cases pending before the court below. For arecanut, 50 paise per nut was fixed and for cashew Rs.30/- per Kg., was fixed. The price of pepper fixed by the Board was accepted by the court below. It cannot be said that the price of agricultural produces fixed by the court below is excessive. 4. As far as expenses for maintenance and cultivation, deductions were made by the Board at 60% for coffee and rubber and 43.75% for other improvements. The court below, taking into account the fact that the respondent was personally indulging in cultivation and that he is not a landlord, fixed the deductions at 40% for rubber and coconut, at 35% for arecanut, at 30% for coffee and at 25% for other improvements. The deductions so fixed by the court below is just and proper. 5. The rate of return was taken at 10% by the Board. The court below, relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542), fixed the rate of return at 5%. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that C.R.P.NO.206 OF 2005 :: 3 :: the compensation fixed by the court below is excessive. In fact, the court below has not awarded any compensation for diminution of land value. If the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1(SC)) were to be adopted, probably, the compensation would have been on the higher side. Taking into account all the circumstances, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this Revision. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/