IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 507 of 2005() --------------------- ELEOP.40/2001 of ADL.D.C. & MACT,THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT IN O.P: --------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER IN O.P: --------------------------------- MARY, D/O. VARKEY, MALAYATTIL HOUSE, MUNIYARA P.O., UDUMBANCHOLA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.B.PREMOD FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.1380/05 IN CRP.507/2005 DISMISSED. 17.11.2009 S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.507 OF 2005 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order dated 21.8.2004 in O.P.No.40 of 2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha. The above original petition was filed by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant' seeking enhanced compensation for the loss and injuries suffered by the drawing of the overhead lines through his property. Revision petitioner, the respondent in the O.P., Kerala State Electricity Board, hereafter referred to as the 'Board' which had drawn the electric lines through the property of the claimant, contended that reasonable and adequate compensation had been paid. In the enquiry on the petition, for the claimant, Exts.A1 to A3 were exhibited and for the Board, Ext.B1 was exhibited. The learned District Judge passed a preliminary award after examining the materials CRP.507/05 2 produced directing the claimant to file statement on the basis of the findings under that award. Pursuant to the claimant filing a statement, after hearing both sides, the impugned order was passed awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.27,907/- to the claimant with the direction to the respondent to pay such sum with the interest at 9% per annum. Challenge in the revision is against the award so passed by the court below. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Inviting my attention to Kerala State Electricity Board v. Philip Antony (2005 (3) KLT 396), the learned counsel for the revision petitioner took serious exception to the passing of the preliminary and final awards by the court in adjudging a claim raised for enhanced compensation. Practice followed by the court was not only irregular, but, totally against the guidelines and directions given by the court in the above decision, and on that solitary ground itself, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, is the submission of the counsel. Enhanced compensation awarded by the court is excessive CRP.507/05 3 and unreasonable and it is not supported by worthmentioning material, is the further submission of the counsel to assail the impugned order. Perusing the order passed by the learned District Judge, though I find some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the procedure followed for passing preliminary and final awards in the original petition was not proper and correct, still in the given facts of the case, no interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction is found necessary. The Board had awarded compensation of Rs.26,834/- towards the value of the trees cut and removed from the property of the petitioner for the drawing of the overhead electric lines. Such assessment of compensation was made on the basis of 10% annuity return, which had been found not correct by this Court in Kumba Amma v. Kerala State Electricity Board (2000 (1) KLT 542), whereunder fixing of compensation in such cases was directed by adopting 5% annuity return. So, a reassessment of the compensation, that too, in respect of the trees cut and removed from the property of the claimant by adopting 5% annuity return, would itself indicate that the CRP.507/05 4 enhanced compensation now paid can never be considered as excessive and unreasonable. It is noticed that there was no claim towards the diminution of land value, but, only in respect of the loss and injuries suffered on account of the cutting an removal of the trees. As it is shown that the enhanced compensation fixed by the court is not excessive and unreasonable, but only just and adequate the procedural irregularity in passing preliminary and final awards cannot be given any significance. There is no merit in the revision, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp