IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 197 of 2005() --------------------- OP.45/1994 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. BRIJITH AUGUSTINE, W/O. VAREED AUGUSTINE, POTHAMPILLY, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI. 2. VICTORY, W/O. SEBASTIAN, RESIDING AT POTHENPILLY (H), -DO- -DO-. 3. JASEENTHA, W/O. MICHAEL, -DO- -DO-. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- C.R.P No.197 OF 2005 -------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March 2010 ORDER The revision is directed against the order dated 26.08.2003 in O.P(Ele.) No.45 of 1994 passed by the learned District Judge, Ernakulam. The above petition was filed by the respondent in the above O.P namely Kerala State Electricity Board hereinafter referred to as the Board. The claimant in the O.P, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Board towards the loss and damages caused to his property by the drawing of 110KV electric line through his property filed the above claim seeking enhanced compensation. Board resisted that application contending just and reasonable compensation had been paid for the loss suffered by the claimant. 2. In the enquiry over the petition, claimant got himself examined as PW1. No other evidence was let in by the respondent-Board. The learned District Judge after appreciating the materials produced and reassessing the compensation payable awarded a sum of Rs.19,268/- as enhanced compensation directing the Board to pay such sum with 10% interest per annum from the date of cutting of trees till the date of realisation. That order is challenged in the revision. C.R.P No.197 OF 2005 Page numbers 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Compensation determined and paid by the Board was adequate and reasonable and that was interfered with by the court below on inadequate data and no material was produced by the claimant to show that he was entitled to any enhanced compensation is the submission of the learned counsel for the Board. Perusing the impugned order, it is seen that the Board has awarded a sum of Rs.23,471/- towards the loss sustained by the claimant by the drawing of overhead electric lines through his property. Admittedly, 8 coconut trees, 13 arecanut trees, one mango tree and one tarlina tree, all of them yielding, had been cut down to facilitate the drawing of the line. The Board has assessed compensation payable fixing annuity return of 10%. The court below reassessed the compensation fixing annuity return of 5% following the guidelines enunciated by this court in “K.S.E.B v Kumba Amma” (2000(1) KLT 542). True, in “K.S.E.B v Levisha” ((2007) 6 SCC 792), the apex court has held that the principles evolved by this court in Kumba Amma's case are not correct and several other relevant factors have to be taken into consideration in determining compensation for the drawing of overhead lines through a property. However, taking notice that the lines have been drawn through the property of the claimant is only having a lesser extent and the number of trees C.R.P No.197 OF 2005 Page numbers cut down are also minimal, I find no interference with the order passed by the court below for a redetermination of the compensation following the principles laid down in Levisha's case need be resorted to in the case unless it is shown that the enhanced compensation awarded by the court below is erroneous and suffer from some jurisdictional infirmity. At the time when the court below passed the impugned order refixing compensation, the decision rendered by this court in Kumbamma's case held the field is also taken into account in examining whether interference with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is called for. The enhanced compensation awarded is only a sum of Rs.19,268/- on refixing the compensation adopting 5% annuity return in lieu of the annuity return of 10% followed by the Board. It is seen that the lines have been drawn by the Board for the purpose of drawing 110KV electric line. Needless to point out, in the case of 110KV and 220KV lines, sufficient clearing area on both sides apart from the area underneath those lines have also to be provided to avoid any mishap and to ensure free flow of energy. In the present case, other than the compensation provided for the trees cut and removed, the claimant has not been given any sum for the injurious affection to his land. That is also to be taken into consideration whether the enhanced compensation fixed and C.R.P No.197 OF 2005 Page numbers awarded by the court calls for interference. Taking into consideration all those aspects and also that the sum awarded is only Rs.19,268/-, that too in respect of a number of yielding trees, I find there is no scope for any interference with the order passed by the court below. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE