IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 CRP.No. 330 of 2008(E) --------------------- OPELE.314/2002 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NANGIARKULANGARA P.O., HARIPAD. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------ K.MADHAVAN, KOLADATHU VADAKKATHIL, VATHIKULAM MURI, THEKKEKKARA VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CR.P. No. 330 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008 O R D E R The Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. had drawn a 220 KV double circuit transmission line from Kayamkulam to Edamon. For the purpose of drawing the said line, The Corporation cut and removed fruit bearing and other trees standing in the property of the respondent situated in Survey No.686/02 of Thekkekkara Village. Out of the 50 cents owned by the respondent the area affected by the drawal of line was 12 cents. The Corporation awarded Rs.21,414/- to the respondent by way of compensation. Challenging the award, the respondent filed OP(EA) No.314/02 before the District Court, Alappuzha. As per the impugned order dated 27.02.07, that court held that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.14,400/- being the diminution in land value. That court further held that the claimant is entitled to a further sum of Rs.12,924/- being the compensation for the trees cut and removed on the basis of yield, applying the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Kumba Amma V. K.S.E.B [2000(1) KLT 542]. It is the said order which is assailed in this CRP 330/08 -:2:- revision by the Corporation. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that in the light of the decision of the apex court in K.S.E.B v. Levisha [2007(2) KLT 1], it was not proper for the court below to apply Kumba Amma's case without any modification. 3. I do not find any reasoning in the decision of the apex court which runs contrary to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kumba Amma. The court below has applied the principles of compensation on the basis of capitalisation method to arrive at a sum of Rs.12,924/-. The amount of diminution in land value was also arrived at on the basis of the market value of the land assessed at Rs.4,000/- per cent 30% of the same was considered to be the diminution in land value. Such being the position, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the court below so as to warrant interference under Section 115 CPC. This Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE ttb