IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 1039 of 2006() ---------------------- OP(ELE)20/2005 of DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------- SMT.ANITHA P.M., D/O.CHANDRAMATHI P.M., AGED 25 YEARS, POODUMMOOLA VEEDU, THIMIRI P.O., NELLIPOYIL, KASARAGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. No.1039 OF 2006 ===================== Dated this the 24th day of January 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the District Court, Kasargod in O.P.(Ele.)No.20 of 2005 whereby the learned District Judge has awarded a compensation of Rs.28,856/- with 6% interest. The court below has calculated the compensation as per the statement filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board and awarded the compensation. A perusal of paragraph 13 of the award would reveal that the court below has fixed the centage value at Rs.2,000/-. It also considered the affected area as 41.25 cents, the diminution of land value at 20% and thereafter calculated the compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contends before me that since the court below has followed the decision in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B.(2000(1) KLT 542) and as the Apex Court has held that each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of that case and therefore the award requires interference. The District Judge has taken into consideration each and every aspect of the case and the amount CRP1039/2006 -:2:- awarded appears to be only just and reasonable which does not call for any interference. Therefore C.R.P lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-