IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 484 of 2008() --------------------- OPELE.31/2005 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ---------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- JOHN, S/O LONAN, MANALI VEETTILATHAYA MATHALIYIL, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.484 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd July, 2008. O R D E R Kerala State Electricity Board is challenging the enhanced compensation granted by Additional District Court, Alappuzha, in O.P.(Ele.) No.31 of 2005, for drawing Aroor-Kalamassery 110 KV line over the property of the respondent in Survey No.418/5-1 of Aroor Village. A compensation of Rs.8635/= was originally awarded. It was received under protest. Respondent filed a petition before District Court claiming enhanced compensation contending that compensation awarded for the trees cut was low and no compensation was awarded for diminution of land value. 2. Still learned District Judge relying on Ext.A1 sale deed dated 14.3.1996, wherein a portion of the property in the same survey number was sold for a value of Rs.49,000/= per cent, fixed the land value at Rs.30,000/= per cent only, holding that comparative advantage was not proved. Based on that evidence, it was found that two cents of the property would be injuriously affected by drawing of CRP.No.484/2008 2 the line and fixed 30% as diminished land value. Based on that, compensation of Rs.18,000/= was awarded for diminution of land value. Compensation awarded for the yielding trees, viz., mango tree, coconut tree, pepper vine and cashew tree was enhanced to Rs.1446/=, granting 5% return, based on Kumba Amma v. KSEB (2000 (1) KLT 542). 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that as held by Apex Court in Livisha v. KSEB (2007 KLT 1), the dictum laid down by this Court in Kumba Amma's case cannot automatically be applied in all cases, and is to be applied on the facts and circumstance of each case, and granting of enhanced compensation for the trees cut is not correct. What was awarded by the District Judge is only Rs.1446/=, and that too, based on reasonable assessment of the yield. In such circumstances, there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference. Revision Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.