IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 795 of 2007() --------------------- OPELE.45/2004 of ADL.D.C. & MACT,THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB SRI.P. SANTHALINGAM, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- MOLLY KURIAN, RESIDING AT PADALAMKKUNNEL HOUSE, CHEMPAKKAPARA, KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM K.JOHN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2011, THE COURT ON 20/12/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. ----------------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.795 of 2007 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 20th December, 2011. O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the respondent in O.P.(Ele) No.45/2004 on the file of Additional District Court, Thodupuzha. The respondent herein was the petitioner in that O.P. 2. The case of the revision petitioner is briefly as follows : For the purpose of drawing Kattapana - Nedumkandum 66 KV line, action was taken by the Board as empowered under Sections 5 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, read with Sections 51 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1885 and certain trees were cut and removed from the property of the respondent. For the purpose of fixing compensation, the values of each improvements were worked out as per Kerala State Electricity Board L.A. Manual and the same was received by the respondent without any protest. Claiming enhanced compensation, the respondent had approached the District Court. Detailed objections have been filed by the petitioner, justifying the amount of compensation. The court below granted an enhanced compensation of Rs.3,70,243/- together C.R.P.795/07 2 with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of cutting of trees till realization and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for Rs.52,797/-, the amount already paid from 13.7.2002 till 30.10.2003 and costs. Against that order, the respondent filed this Civil Revision Petition. 3. 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 consonance with the principles and guidelines given by the Apex Court and so much so, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge suffers from jurisdictional infirmity and thus liable to be interfered with, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 4. 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. C.R.P.795/07 3 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 as far as compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees are concerned, the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each 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. In the above circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. C.R.P.795/07 4 Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as it is without any merits. There is no order as to costs. Sd/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. tgs (True copy) P.S. to Judge.