IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2009 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRP.No. 184 of 2008(F) --------------------- OPELE.128/1989 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER: ------------------------- V.A.LONAPPAN, W/O. ANTONY, AGED 81 YEARS, VADASSERY HOUSE, VELLIKULANGARA, KODASSERY VILLAGE. ADV. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R1 MR.M.GEORGE THOMAS FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.184 of 2008 - F --------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2009 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order dated 18.1.2006 in O.P.(Ele) 128 of 1989 passed by the learned District Judge, Thrissur. The respondent has filed the above petition under Sections 10 and 15 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 5 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and under Section 42 of the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act 1948, seeking enhanced compensation towards the loss and damages sustained by the installing of a tower and also drawing of overhead lines through his property having an extent of 50 cents comprised in survey No.1553 of Kodassery village in Mukundapura Taluk by the revision petitioner, Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, for drawing a 220 KV electricity line from Idukki-Thrissur. Towards compensation for installing the tower and drawing of the overhead line the Board assessed and paid a sum of Rs.20,007.30. Impeaching the compensation provided as inadequate and unreasonable the above petition was C.R.P.No.184 of 2008 - F 2 filed by the claimants. The Board resisted that application contending that reasonable compensation had been paid. After both sides let in evidence in which an advocate commissioner deputed by the court also filed a report after conducting local inspection the court below dismissed the application declining to grant any enhanced compensation. Claimant preferred a revision before this Court challenging the order dismissing his petition and after hearing both sides setting aside the dismissal order the case was remitted for fresh consideration. Pursuant to such remission present order has been passed by the court below awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.38,428/- to the claimant. The enhanced compensation so awarded is impeached in the revision by the Board contending that it is excessive and unreasonable. 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. 3. Towards compensation for the nine yielding coconut trees cut down for the drawing of the overhead lines through the property of the claimant the court below had awarded a sum of Rs.27,000/- as enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per tree. While awarding such enhanced compensation the sum C.R.P.No.184 of 2008 - F 3 paid by the Board earlier for such trees had not been deducted, is the grievance espoused by the learned counsel for the Board to contend that compensation provided for the tress was excessive and it is liable to be interfered with. It is not disputed that the trees were cut and removed as early in 1986 and till date other thanRs.20,007.30/- fixed by the Board no amount has been paid to the claimant so far. The trees which had been cut and removed from the properties, it is submitted, were of yielding and aged below 15 years. Enhanced compensation awarded by the court for such trees is only Rs.3,000/-. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the Board that the Board had assessed the compensation for the trees fixing 10% annuity return and not at 5% annuity return following the guidelines given by this Court in Kumba Amma v. KSEB (2000(1) KLT 542). In that view of the matter also, I find the enhanced compensation granted by the court cannot be termed as excessive and unreasonable. Admittedly, a tower was installed in the property of the claimant taking an area of 2.18 cents, and towards the diminution of the land value on account of the erection of the tower fixing centage C.R.P.No.184 of 2008 - F 4 value of Rs.2,000/- the learned District Judge has awarded compensation of Rs.4,360/-. The Board has no case that it has awarded any amount towards compensation for the erection of the tower. Then towards the diminution of the land value of the drawing of the overhead lines through that property taking a view that its value was affected to the extent of 20% with reference to centage value of Rs.2,000/- the learned District Judge has awarded a sum of Rs.7,068/- as enhanced compensation. Compensation awarded under the above heads is found to be just and reasonable. There is no scope for interfering with the enhanced compensation awarded on the various heads by the learned District Judge, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-