IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 940 of 2007() --------------------- OPELE.55/2004 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------- SRI. P.K.GOPALAN RES. AT PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, THULASSIPPARA KARA, ERATTAYAR, KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.2673/2007 IN C.R.P.NO.940/2007 DISMISSED 7/02/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 940 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of February, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Thodupuzha in O.P.(Ele.)55/04 whereby the Court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.8,440/-. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The Court below has awarded the enhanced compensation under two heads, one, on the basis of valuation of a mango tree and the other with respect to the yield of 25 pepper wines in the property. It is seen that the mango tree was aged 20 years at the time of cutting. The Court below has considered that it will have a longer life and also deducted 25% for the maintenance. The Court calculated price of mango tree and found that he is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,500/- for that tree which cannot be considered to be on a higher side. After deducting the amount awarded as additional compensation an amount of Rs.4968.75 was awarded under that head. CRP 940 OF 2007 -:2:- 2. So far as the pepper-wines are concerned the Court below considered that there were 25 pepper-wines and it was held that it may yield for another 10 to 15 years, relying upon the document produced fixed the price of the pepper per kg. at Rs.80/- deducting 25% for the maintenance and applied the dictum in Kumba Amma's case awarded the compensation. The learned counsel would submit that application of the principle in Kumba Amma's case cannot be taken in all cases in the light of the decision of the Apex Court reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1), it is true that the Apex Court has held that each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case. But, here is a case where materials are available to show that the Court has even considered age of the pepper wines, number of pepper wines, the yield derived from it, the longevity, the price and then had calculated the compensation. One cannot hold that the Court below has only applied the uniform percentage of Kumba Amma's case but has also taken into account the other materials for fixing CRP 940 OF 2007 -:3:- the compensation. Therefore it cannot be held that the compensation awarded is in excess and therefore the C.R.P. is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-