IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 144 of 2001(C) --------------------------------- [OP.NO.212/1999 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VYDHYUDHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 4. BY ADVS. SRI.R.K.VENU NAYAR, SC, KSEB SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- M.V. CHANDRAN, MELEVEETTIL HOUSE, MUZHAPPALA.P.O., ANJARAKKANDI, KANNUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.144 of 2001 --------------------------------------- Dated this 24th day of November, 2011 ORDER This civil revision is filed by the State Electricity Board challenging the order of learned Additional District Judge, Thalassery in O.P.No.212 of 1999 awarding enhanced compensation for drawal of high tension line and cutting off various improvements from the property of respondent. Petitioner awarded `.4,577/- as compensation. Respondent, not being satisfied with the amount approached learned District Judge with O.P.No.212 of 1999. Learned District Judge disposed of the said petition along with the connected cases. Compensation payable to the respondent was enhanced to `.6,806/- with interest @12% per annum. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the respondent. 3. The enhancement allowed by the learned Additional District Judge from what is already awarded by petitioner is only around `.2,300/-. I am not inclined to think that this Court in revision is required to interfere with that enhancement. C.R.P.No.144 of 2001 -: 2 :- 4. Next challenge is to the interest awarded @12% per annum. That obviously was taking into account the rate of interest prevailing at the time of tree cutting. I must bear in mind that the order was passed as early as on 07.04.2000. In the circumstance, rate of interest awarded does not call for interference, having regard to the peculiar facts of the case. This civil revision is dismissed. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-