IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 CRP.No. 125 of 2007(Y) ---------------------------------- OP(ELE).29/1999 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- LALITHA DAVID, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.DAVID, DEEPTHI, PEYAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 125 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred by the applicant in Ele.(O.P.)23/99 of the Addl. District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. 61 rubber trees and 27.5 cents are said to be affected and the court below has granted an additional compensation of Rs.35,941/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from 19.8.88. Aggrieved by the decision the K.S.E.B filed C.R.P.818/07 and the petitioner filed C.R.P. 125/07 which is the present case. 2. I had the opportunity to consider the revision petition preferred by the K.S.E.B. and I had held that in the context of this CRP it is only a just and reasonable calculation and that did not call for any interference. It has to be remembered that it was to reduce the CRP NO. 125 of 2007 -:2:- compensation granted the revision was preferred. The approach was in that angle to find out the reasonableness in doing so. 3. Now the learned counsel for the K.S.E.B strongly contends before me that since I had dismissed his CRP the question of enhancement does not arise for consideration in the present CRP. I am afraid that the said contention cannot be accepted in toto for the reason that two cases are filed in two different directions and the application of mind of the Court has been drawn into one direction and therefore it shall not be treated as a bar to consider that case filed by the applicant before the Court. Now to the facts of the case 61 trees aged five years were cut and removed. They were all rubber plants. The trial court considered that expenses for the cultivation alone need be granted and granted Rs.500/- as expenses for five years together for each tree and fixed a CRP NO. 125 of 2007 -:3:- sum of Rs.30,500/- as the total amount. Similarly for the diminution of the land value the rate was fixed at Rs.2,500/- per cent and 20% was granted. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides I feel justice requires interference at least to enhance the compensation to a slight extend. Now what is granted is only the cost of cultivation. A person who had lost the tree is deprived of enjoying the usufructs of that tree and therefore at least a normal compensation has to be granted for these trees or give it in the diminution of land value. I fix it Rs.100/- per tree and award Rs.6,100/- towards the tree compensation. 4. Now it is clear that the area is a rubber plantation and evidence had been let in to show that 450 trees can be planted in a hectare and when 61 trees are planted, it will come to about 28 cents which precisely the Court CRP NO. 125 of 2007 -:4:- has calculated as 27.5 cents. The Commissioner who inspected the property in another case fixed the value of the property at Rs.4,500/- but in the other cases considering the land to be of equally important fixed the land value at Rs.2,500/-. Considering the fact that it is a rubber estate which is capable of getting good yield I fix it at Rs.3,000/- per cent and when diminution of land value is calculated for 20% at that rate the claimant will be entitled to Rs.2,750/- more therefore I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.8,850/- with 7% interest from 19.8.98 till realisation. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-