IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 CRP.NO. 352 OF 2008() --------------------------------- OPELE.153/2002 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT IN OP --------------------------------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECSRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN OP ------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH, S/O.MATHEW, PAIKADA HOUSE ARAKULAM KARA, ARAKULAM VILLAGE THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.352 of 2008 ==================================== Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010 O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board challenging additional compensation awarded by learned Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha on the application of respondent. It is not disputed that 66 KV line was drawn through property of respondent and as compensation for value of improvements petitioner awarded only Rs.46,369/-. Learned Additional District Judge found compensation payable as Rs.1,17,730/- and deducting amount already paid, fixed additional compensation due and payable as Rs.71,361/-. Taking into account order passed by this Court in C.R.P. No.196 of 1996 learned Additional District Judge directed petitioner to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum. That order is under challenge in this revision petition. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that additional compensation awarded by the court below is excessive and erroneous. 2. So far as datas regarding improvements are concerned C.R.P. No.352 of 2008 -: 2 :- it is seen that only change brought in by the learned Additional District Judge is regarding the price of produces and deduction for maintenance and other reasons. Though Ext.A1, copy of Gazette Notification dated 30.01.2001 gives prices of coconut and arecanut in April, 1999 that was not accepted by the learned Additional District Judge and instead taking into account similar awards price was fixed at the rate of fifty paise per arecanut and Rs.5/- per coconut. Exhibit A2 was produced to show price of coco at Rs.65.60 per kg during the relevant time. Learned Additional District Judge fixed price of coco at Rs.20/- per kg. So far as coffee is concerned, Ext.A3 was pressed into service and as against Rs.58.30 per kg, only Rs.30/- per kg was awarded. Price of produces was fixed accordingly which does not call for interference at the instance of petitioner. 3. Then the next question is regarding deductions. For coffee petitioner has taken a deduction of 60% while for other produces it was taken as 43.75%. That according to the learned Additional District Judge was excessive and hence for coffee deduction was taken as 30%, for rubber and coconut 40%, for arecanut 35% and other produces 25%. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find reason to C.R.P. No.352 of 2008 -: 3 :- interfere with the said award at the hands of petitioner. 4. So far as rate of return (from the produces) is concerned following the decision in Kumbha Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 [1] KLT 542) learned Additional District Judge fixed it as 5%. That also calls for no interference. 5. What remained is rate of interest. Rate of interest was fixed based on the decision in C.R.P. No.196 of 1996. Considering the interest prevailing during the relevant time and the reasoning given by the learned Additional District Judge for awarding interest at 9% I do no find reason to interfere. Having considered the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge and hearing counsel for petitioner I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order requiring interference in revision at the instance of petitioner. Civil Revision Petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv