IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 541 of 2005() --------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP (Ele) 348/02 OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC-II), ERNAKULAM. REVN. PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER: ------------------------------ LEELA, W/O.LATE SANKARAN, MOSARUKUDY (H), MULAVOOR, NIRAPPU, EAST VAZHAPPILLY P.O., VIA MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DIST. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA 1430/05 IN CRP 541/05 DISMISSED 7.1.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 541 OF 2005 --------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Additional District Judge, Ernakulam, in OP (Ele) 348/02 whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 7,193/- with 6% interest. It is true that the court below has relied upon a Full Bench decision in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B [2000 (1) KLT 542] whereby the entitlement of 5% annuity is upheld. Learned counsel would point out that the matter requires reconsideration in the light of the decision of the Apex court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1]. 2. What is emphasised in the Apex court's decision is that each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of that case. For that purpose, situs of the land, the manner in which it is affected etc., has been taken into consideration. So far as this case is concerned, the claimant has filed a valuation statement claiming large compensation but the court limited it. Considering the number of coconut trees affected, cut and removed, gave an additional C.R.P. NO.541/05 2 compensation of Rs.3,193/- only. So far as affected land is concerned, the court held that 2 cents of land are affected and therefore granted diminution of land value of 40% fixing the rate per cent at Rs.5,000/-. Thus an additional amount of Rs.4,000/- was granted for diminution of land value. The court has given cogent reasons for the same and how the land has been affected. It has also to be borne in mind that the court did not accept the evidence of the claimant for a larger amount. Therefore, I feel this is a case where a proper amount of compensation has been awarded and the award does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality. Therefore the civil revision petition is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.541/05 3