IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 493 of 2004() --------------------- OPELE.45/1995 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------------- ALIYAR, S/O.KOCHU MUHAMMED, PADIKKAMATTATHIL, OONNUKAL.P.O., THALAKODE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (LA), KSEB, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WORLD BANK PROJECT, KSEB, PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR RESPONDENTS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.493 OF 2004 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 O R D E R The revision is directed against an order passed by the District Judge, Ernakulam challenging the quantum of enhanced compensation awarded to the revision petitioner, the claimant in O.P.No.45 of 1995, which was filed under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, Section 51 of the Electricity Act and Section 42 of the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act. Enhanced compensation adjudged and awarded by the court suffers from serious infirmities is the ground canvassed to impeach the correctness of the order passed by the court below. Perusing the order challenged, it is seen, the petitioner had filed a revised statement limiting his claim to Rs.60,015.49 in lieu of the earlier claim of a sum of Rs.11,30,303.56 as the loss suffered by him by the drawing of lines by the Kerala State Electricity Board CRP.493/04 2 through his property. The learned District Judge has awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.53,584/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of cutting of the trees till realisation. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits the amount shown in the revised valuation statement was different from what had been recorded in the statement before the court below. The learned counsel also brings to my notice that the revised statement was confined only to the compensation claimed for the rubber trees alone and in respect of other trees, he has claimed compensation under a separate claim. A sum of Rs.16,000/- was claimed under that head is the submission of the counsel. It is also submitted that the court below has not properly appreciated the claim made by the petitioner for injurious affection over his land by the drawing of the lines though materials were produced including the report prepared by an Advocate Commissioner as to the diminution of the land value suffered. Normally the correctness of the statement made in the judgment or the order when it has been CRP.493/04 3 passed on statements filed before the court or on submissions made before the Presiding Officer, if it has not been correctly recorded, demand of bringing it to the notice of the court concerned moving a proper petition as provided by law seeking correction or review. However, in the present case, as I find no reason to doubt the submissions made by the counsel that the statement claimed in the revised statement has not been correctly reflected in the order passed by the court below, I find a further opportunity should be extended to the petitioner for canvassing his claim afresh on the basis of the revised statement already filed by him and also on the materials available on record. Setting aside the impugned order, the court below is directed to examine the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The court below shall also examine whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation towards the diminution of land value irrespective of the finding entered in the impugned order which has been set aside. I make it clear that the determination of all the questions covered CRP.493/04 4 shall be decided solely on the basis of the materials available on record. Subject to the above observations, this revision is disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp CRP.493/04 5