IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 CRP.No. 824 of 2006() --------------------- OPELE.5/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ SMT.SUSAMMA DANIEL @ SUSAN RAJAN GOERGE, SAM VILLAGE, AYARANIKUDY P.O., CHERUMUKHA MURI, NOORANADU VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.JIJI MATHEW, MR.N.SURESH. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON 18/09/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.3033/2006 IN CRP.NO.824/2006 DISMISSED 18/09/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.824 OF 2006 (E) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009 O R D E R The revision is directed against the awarding of enhanced compensation to the respondent towards the drawing of electric line through her property. The claim of the respondent, numbered as O.P.(Ele).No.5 of 2002 was considered with two other claim petitions, all in respect of properties covered by the drawing of the same line, Edappon- Pathanamthitta 110 KV line by the Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'. Appreciating the materials produced in the claim petitions, after their joint trial, the learned District Judge passed a common order awarding enhanced compensation to the claimants over and above the sum fixed and paid by the Board. The claimant in O.P.(Ele).No.5 of 2004, the respondent in the revision was awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.58,273/- with 6% CRP.824/06 2 interest from the date of petition till payment. Propriety and correctness of the award so passed is challenged by the Board in the revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned District Judge, considering the commission report prepared by an Advocate Commissioner, after conducting local inspection over the property through which the line was drawn and also the surrounding areas, fixed the centage value of the land at Rs.4,000/-, which was fixed by the Advocate Commissioner at Rs.15,000/- per cent. It was noticed from the Commissioner's report that the line was drawn for a length of 64 meters and a width of 7 meters through the property of the respondent and almost 15 cents of property suffered injurious affectation by the drawing of line and cutting down of valuable tress. Fixing 15% as the diminishing land value at the centage value of Rs.4,000/- for the above said 15 cents, compensation of Rs.9,000/- was awarded by the learned District Judge. No circumstance or material whatsoever was brought to my notice to show that the compensation so fixed and awarded by CRP.824/06 3 the learned District Judge is excessive and arbitrary. On the contrary, compensation fixed is found to be just and reasonable. 44 yielding rubber trees were cut and removed from the property of the respondent for the drawing of the electric line. The Board has assessed annuity at 5% to assess the compensation payable towards the trees cut and removed. The learned District Judge, taking note of the directions given in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542 (FB)), fixed the annuity at 10% and reassessed the compensation, by which, the respondent was found entitled to get additional compensation at Rs.49,273.31 towards the cutting and removal of the trees. Principle followed by the learned District Judge in reassessing the compensation is found to be proper and correct. True, in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha ((2007) 6 SCC 792), the apex court has held that the guidelines given in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542 (FB)) have to be applied subject to the modifications as enunciated in the reported decision. Still, having regard to the facts and circumstances presented and the materials produced, I find, by no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that the CRP.824/06 4 enhanced compensation assessed and fixed by the learned District Judge suffers from any infirmity warranting interference by exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is also reported that the challenges raised against the awarding of enhanced compensation in the two connected petitions covered by the common order, at the instance of the Board, had been repelled by this Court in orders passed in the respective revisions. I do not find any merit in the revision challenging the enhanced compensation awarded to the respondent. Revision is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp