IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 166 of 2008() --------------------- OPELE.63/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA .................... REVISION PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------- SRI.YESODARAN, YESUS (PUNNAKADAVU VEEDU) CHINGOLI VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 166 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of February, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Addl. District Judge-I, Mavelikkara in O.P.63/02 whereby the Addl. District Judge has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.26,348/- with 6% interest. The learned Judge awarded an additional compensation of Rs.14,348/- for the trees cut and also awarded a compensation of Rs.12,000/- for the diminution of land value. The learned counsel had taken me through the award passed by the Court and argued that the Court has taken into consideration the annuity factor fixed by this Court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542). She would contend for the position that in the light of the decision reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1) each case has to be considered on the merits of that case and a uniform annuity cannot be taken. The said proposition argued by the learned counsel is to be taken note of. But in all cases what the Court has to see is whether the Court below has erred in CRP NO. 166 of 2008 -:2:- arriving at a proper compensation. A perusal of the award itself would show that there were yielding coconut trees, jack-fruit trees, mango trees and cashew trees in the property. The Court has taken the age, future age, yielding and value of commodity and on the basis of that coupled with the decision of this Court applied the annuity factor at 5% which cannot be terms as excessive. So far as the diminution in land value is concerned the Court held that the line that is drawn is 220 K.V. Line and that the total extent affected according to the Court below is 12 cents. It fixed the market value of the property at Rs.5,000/- per cent and awarded 20% compensation for the diminution in land value. A perusal of paragraph 11 of the award would reveal that the Court has only fixed a reasonable centage rate and therefore that also cannot be found to be fault with. From these discussions I find that the C.R.P. is not to be entertained and therefore it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-