IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRP.No. 309 of 2005() -------------------------------- ( O.P.(ELE.240/1998 of I ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/ PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------- PAULOSE.A.R., AGED 49 YEARS, ALUKKA HOUSE, AYYAMPUZHA P.O., KADUKULANGARA KARA, (VIA) MANJAPRA. BY ADV. SMT.K.T.LILLY @ LILLY JAMES RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION FOR KSEB, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM SC KSEB THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------- C.R.P.No. 309 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2011 ORDER Dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the lower court the petitioner in O.P.No.240/1998 before the District Court, Ernakulam has come up in revision. 2. It appears that for the purpose of drawing 220 KV DC line the board had cut and removed trees standing in the property of the petitioner. From the record, it is understood that the board had paid a sum of Rs.40,959.09/- compensation towards trees cut and removed. Dissatisfied with that amount the petitioner approached the court below for enhancing the amount. The court below enhanced the compensation for trees cut and removed by another Rs.40,959.09/- and also granted a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards diminishing the land value. It is seen from the order that a further amount of Rs.13,949/- has also given 6% interest till the date of cutting of the trees. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that enhanced compensation has been given only for the coconut trees, there was other yielding trees cut and removed which had not being considered by the courts below. It is also pointed out that the interest awarded is low. C.R.P.No. 309 of 2005 2 4. Unfortunately, both the above contentions are without merits. The main item of the evidence of the courts below was commissioner's report. For cogent and convincing reason the court below had declined to accept the commissioner's report. There is no reason for this court to take a different view. The petitioner had not mounted the box. There is nothing to show that the court below had erred in any manner in not granting additional compensation for other trees cut and removed in the absence of any acceptable evidence in that regard. 5. The courts below has also adopted a uniform standard for determining the diminution in land value in all the three cases for joint trial. There is nothing to indicate that either the land value or the extent of land computed for the purpose of arriving quantum of diminution in land value is wrong. There is no reason to take a different view in this case. The result is that the C.R.P. is without any merits and it is liable to be dismissed. I do so. There will be no order as to costs. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. ln