IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 945 of 2007() --------------------- OPELE.231/2000 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: ------------------------ SRI.AUGUSTHY PATHROSE, PALLIKUNNEL (H) MUNIYARA KARA, KONNATHADY VILLAGE. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ========================= CRP NO. 945 OF 2007 ========================= Dated this the 29th day of February 2008 JUDGMENT This revision is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge,Thodupuzha whereby he has awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.23,614/- with 9% interest. 2. I have perused the award. It is seen from the award that the court below has considered all the points in the correct perspective. The court has considered the nature of the coffee plantation, the value of the coffee at the point of time and the value of the arecanut and cashew also. It also considered about the cultivation expenses and had deducted a reasonable amount for cultivation, i.e.35% for cardamom and arecanut, 30% for coffee and for other improvements at 25%. It is true that the dictum laid down in Kumbha v Kerala State Electricity Board (2000(1)KLT 542) had been followed. But it can be seen that the application has been decided on the entire facts and materials available and I cannot find fault with the court below for fixing CRP No.945/2007 2 5% return in this case. Therefore I find that the award is in order and it does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE css/