IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 392 of 2002(E) ---------------------- EL.OP.55/1998 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER: RESPONDENT IN OP: --------------------------------------------------------------------- K.S.E BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KSEB, VAIDHUTHIBHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURANM. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SC FOR K.S.E.B. RESPONDENT: PETITIONER IN OP: --------------------------------------------------- BABY, S/O.PAULOSE, MANAYATH HOUSE, KUNJUKUZHI VILLAGE, KANJIKUZHI P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.6813/202 IN C.R.P.NO.392/2002 DISMISSED 12/02/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- C.R.P.No.392 OF 2002 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha in E.O.P.No.55/1998. By the said order the court has awarded a compensation of Rs.13,772/- with 10% interest. I had perused the order. The points raised are that the petitioner has not proved his title to the property and the compensation awarded is excessive. It can be seen from the order of the court below that the cutting of the improvement by the respondent from the property possessed by the petitioner is not disputed. When it is not disputed the question that the petitioner is not entitled to compensation cannot be entertained. Therefore, the said argument is rejected. 2. So far as the quantum is concerned, it is seen that three arecanut trees, three peppervines, one peppervine aged 7 years, two mango trees ad two cashew trees were cut and removed from the property. The court has taken into consideration the yield, the price etc. prevalent at the time of C.R.P.No.392/2002 2 cutting. The court has also deducted 43.75% maintenance expense to the arecanut trees and 25% to the other trees. Taking into consideration, the age of the trees proper multiplier has been used and the compensation has been arrived at. So there has been independent consideration of the materials available for determining the compensation. Even in the decision in Kerala State Electricity Board vs.Livisha reported in 2007(3)KLT 1, what the court has directed is to consider each case on the facts and circumstances of that case. So far as this case is concerned, the court below has considered every matter meticulously and has awarded the compensation. I do not find any merit in the civil revision petition and therefore the civil revision petition is dismissed. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps