IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 120 of 2008 ---------------------------- OP(ELE.) 146/2002 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA ................................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA,KAYAMKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. JAMEELA BEEVI D/O. USMAN KUNJU,PADANACKA VADACKATHIL CHINGOLI P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. ABDUL LATHEEF S/O.USMAN KUNJU,PADANACKA VADACKATHIL CHINGOLI P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. SHAJAHAN, S/O.USMAN KUNJU,PADANACKA VADACKATHIL CHINGOLI P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. NOUSHAD, S/O.USMAN KUNJU,PADANACKA VADACKATHIL CHINGOLI P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- C.R.P. No.120 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008 O R D E R ~~~~~~~~ This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, Mavelikkara in O.P.(Ele) No.146/2002 whereby the court has awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.26,002/-. The court awarded 17,002/- as enhanced compensation for the trees cut and Rs.9,000/- for diminution of land value. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit before me that the court below has applied the principle laid down in Kumbamma v. K.S.E.B reported in 2000 (1) KLT 542, whereby the annuity factor is fixed at 5%. Learned counsel would submit in the light of the decision of the Apex court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha reported in 2007(3) KLT 1, the Apex court has held that each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of the case. The question is whether the court has grossly erred in fixing the 5% annuity is the short question. We find that so far as enhancement of the value of the trees cut is concerned, the trees involved are yielding coconut and arecanut trees. The age factor is taken into consideration, the C.R.P.No.120/2008 2 longevity of yeild is another factor that has been determined and it is only after taking into consideration, the court felt that 5% annuity has to be applied for calculating the compensation. So it cannot be said that the court has blindly applied the 5% theory to arrive at a decision. 2. So far as the diminution of the land value is concerned, the rate claimed was Rs. 40,000/- per cent that the court fixed it as 5,000/- per cent found that the area affected is six cents and considering the nature of drawal of the line and the other circumstances fixed 30% as the diminution of land value for the said six cents and awarded a compensation of Rs. 9,000/-. So it has to be stated that the compensation awarded by the court is only just and adequate and it does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity which requires interference by this court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps