IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 CRP.No. 372 of 2008() --------------------- OP(ELE.)70/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, PEEDIKAPPARA HOUSE, OTTALLOOR P.O., KARIMKUNNAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.372 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2011. ORDER The order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha in O.P.(Ele.) No.70 of 2002 is under challenge. Learned Additional District Judge passed a preliminary award issuing certain directions to the parties and based on that passed a final award allowing enhanced compensation of `11,775/- with interest as referred to in the order. Learned counsel submitted that the enhancement allowed is excessive and without basis. 2. It is not disputed that 66 KV line was drawn through the property of respondent for which various yielding improvements were cut and removed. Respondent thought that compensation awarded by petitioner is meager and claimed enhanced compensation. 3. So far as age of the improvements and yield is concerned, it is seen that learned Additional District Judge has accepted the case of petitioner. To prove price of coffee respondent produced Ext.A2, price list issued by the coffee board which stated price of coffee per kg. as `55.30 as against `15/- per kg. allowed by the petitioner. Tree cutting was on 21.08.1998. Learned Additional District Judge did not rely on Ext.A2 for various reasons stated in the order. But having regard to the price as evidenced by Ext.A2 as well and the CRP No.372/2008 2 price allowed by petitioner for coffee, learned Additional District Judge fixed the price of it as `30/- per kg. That cannot be said to be excessive or illegal calling for interference in revision at the instance of petitioner. 4. So far as price of arecanut and coconut is concerned, respondent has produced Ext.A1, notification dated 24.10.2000 where price was given as in January, 1999. Ext.A1 was not relied by learned Additional District Judge. But having regard to the prevailing market rate, the price of arecanut was fixed as 50 ps. Per nut and that of coconut at `5/- per nut. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the order under challenge I am not inclined to think that the modified price of arecanut and coconut is excessive calling for interference in revision at the instance of petitioner. 5. In the matter of deductions for maintenance and droppings , etc. petitioner deducted 60% for coffee and 43.75% for other produces. Court below found that deductions for maintenance and droppings for coffee could be fixed as 30%, for coconut as 40%, for arecanut as 35% and for other produces as 25%. That also cannot be said to be excessive calling for interference in revision. 6. As against annuity fixed by petitioner, learned Additional District Judge has accepted 5% as annuity relying on the decision in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542). That also cannot be said to be excessive or illegal. I find no reason to interfere. CRP No.372/2008 3 7. On various amounts payable learned Additional District Judge has granted 9% interest per annum which in view of current rate of interest I do not find reason to interfere. The order under challenge requires no interference at the instance of petitioner. Civil revision is dismissed. No cost. I.A.No.1016 of 2008 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks