IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 786 of 2006() --------------------- OPELE.216/2000 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ---------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ----------------------- SRI.SIVAN, S/O.NEELAKANDAN, AGED 49 YEARS, THANDEL HOUSE, KOMBODINJAL KARA, PANICKANKUDY P.O., UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.SABU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA 2908/06 IN C.R.P 786/06 DISMISSED 12.3.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 786 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 ORDER This civil revision petition is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha, in OP(Ele) 216/00 whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.13,051/- with 9% interest. 2. I have perused the award and heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. It can be seen from the award that Ext.A2 document was produced to show that the price of coffee is Rs. 37.36 per Kg. The court below did not accept it on the ground that the variety of coffee is not shown. There was no other document produced before the court to show its price as Rs. 15 per Kg. Therefore the court fixed the price at Rs.30 per Kg. and proceeded with the matter. Just like in all other cases which were tried at that point of time, the court fixed the value of coconut at Rs. 5 per nut, areacanut at ps. 50 per nut and cashewnut at Rs.30 per Kg. The court also found that the expenses for cultivation is 40% for coconut, 35% for areacanut, 30% for coffee and 25% for other improvements. C.R.P. NO.786/06 2 Above all these, the court below applied the dictum laid down in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. [2000 (1) KLT 542] wherein the court has ordered to take uniform annuity of 5% for calculation of compensation. It was not arbitrary in taking of the annual return at 5% on the basis of Kumba Amma's case but was on the basis of entire potentials and materials available before the court. Therefore, one cannot find fault with the court below for arriving at such a decision and fixing the amount which the claimant is entitled to get as additional compensation. The civil revision petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.786/06 3