IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 898 of 2006() --------------------- OPELE.164/1993 of DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN E.OP: ----------------------------------------------------------- P. SATHYABHAMA, W/O. ANANTHAN PILLAI, VADAKKETHIL VEEDU, THACHINGANADAM P.O., NENMINI AMSOM, THACHINGANADAM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P. BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= C.R.P. No. 898 of 2006 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 O R D E R Aggrieved by the enhancement of Rs.45,000/- granted by the court below, the Kerala State Electricity Board has come up in revision. 2. The revision is directed against the order in O.P. (Ele.) No. 164 of 1993 on the file of the District Court, Manjeri. The property of the respondent was utilized by the revision petitioner for drawing of the electric line. The Board awarded a sum of Rs.39,055/-. According to the respondent, that was inadequate and hence, she approached the District Court, Manjeri and claimed enhanced compensation of Rs.3,78,656/-. 3. The Board resisted the petition and contended that adequate compensation was granted and the respondent was not entitled to further amount as compensation. The respondent/petitioner examined PW1. The revision CRP 898/06 2 petitioner marked Exts.B1 to B3. Exts.C1 to C6 were marked as Court Exhibits. 4. It is not in dispute that 220 KV line was drawn through the property of the respondent/petitioner and the claim that the property has been divided into two. The court below on evaluation of the evidence before it, came to the conclusion that the respondent/petitioner is entitled to additional compensation of Rs.45,700/- towards trees cut and removed. The court below relied on a decision reported in K.S.E.B. V. Cheriyan Varghese (1989(1) KLT 481) and found that the respondent/petitioner was entitled to compensation for diminution in land value. For the trees cut and removed the court below has granted Rs.45,700/- as enhanced compensation. That appears to be a reasonable amount. 5. The court below found that the property is a garden land. The market value claimed was Rs.1,000/- per cent and that was quite reasonable and accepted. The court below has taken 25% of the market value as the CRP 898/06 3 diminution in land value and Rs.250/- was taken as compensation for diminution in land value per cent. Thus, the court below granted Rs.18,750/- towards diminution in land value. 6. On a perusal of the order of the court below would clearly show the court below has considered all aspects and came to the conclusion on the basis of the materials available before it. No grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order. There is no merit in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mn.