IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 CRP.No. 426 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/01/2008 IN OP (ELE.)72/2005 of THE ADDL. DIST. COURT, ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER: -------------------------- KOCHUNNY, S/O.MAKKI, KANDANATTU THARA, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.426 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 15th September, 2009 ORDER The revision is directed against the order dated 8.1.2008 in O.P.(Ele.)No.72 of 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha. The respondent had filed the above petition to claim enhanced compensation for the loss and injuries suffered by the drawing of overhead line through his property by the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). The Board had cut and removed trees from the property of the respondent for drawing Aroor-Kalamassery 110KV line, for which a compensation of Rs.7874/- was awarded. Challenging the compensation awarded as inadequate and unreasonable, the respondent raised the claim for enhanced compensation. The learned District Judge, after examining the materials produced in the case, awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.18600/- under the impugned order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The property of the respondent through which the Board draw the electric line has an extent of 10 cents. The respondent/claimant claimed that it has a centage value of Rs.75,000/-. The learned District Judge taking note CRP No.426/08 - 2 - of the number of trees cut down found that only two cents of the claimant's land was injuriously affected by the drawing of the overhead line and such injurious affectation was about 30%. With reference to A1 document produced, the centage value was fixed at Rs.20,000/- and a sum of Rs.12,000/- was assessed by the learned District Judge towards diminution of the land value suffered by the claimant. The Board had assessed compensation for the cutting down of two yielding coconut trees at 5% annuity value. The court below reassessed such compensation on the basis of 10% annuity value following the principles laid down by this court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. [2000(1) KLT 542(FB)]. It is seen that the court below had also taken note of the subsequent decision rendered by the apex court in Livisha v. K.S.E.B. [2007(3) KLT 1(SC)] in reassessing the enhanced compensation payable. Following the guidelines and principles enunciated by this court and the apex court, it was found the claimant towards the value of the trees cut down was entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.6600/-. Thus, the claimant/respondent was awarded a total compensation of Rs.18600/- allowing him to recover such amount with 6% interest from the date of cutting of the trees till realisation. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the CRP No.426/08 - 3 - assessment made and compensation awarded by the learned District Judge under the impugned order. No circumstances whatsoever has been brought to my notice to show that the enhanced compensation awarded was excessive and unreasonable nor that the guiding principles applicable have not been followed. In the circumstances, I find the challenge against the order impugned must fail. The revision is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE