IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 439 of 2008() --------------------- OP(ELE).17/2005 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. ................................ REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- KSEB, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, KSEB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV.SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- BEENA , W/O.SHAJI, ROMAL NIVAS, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, ALAPUZHA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2011, THE COURT ON 28.11.2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. ----------------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.439 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 28th November, 2011. O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the respondent/Kerala State Electricity Board in O.P.(Ele) No.17/2005 of Additional District Court, Alappuzha. The respondent herein was the petitioner in that O.P., which was filed under Sections 10 to 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act. 2. The revision petitioner cut and removed certain trees from the property of the respondent in Sy.No.406/23-5 of Aroor Village for drawing Aroor-Mattancherry 110 KV line over the property for which a compensation of Rs.17,642/- was awarded which the respondent received under protest. Challenging the award as illegal and unreasonable, the Original Petition was filed seeking additional compensation for the trees cut and also claiming compensation for diminution in land value. The respondent/Board filed objections contending that adequate compensation was awarded taking into consideration all relevant aspects and hence no additional amount is payable under any head. CRP 439/08 2 3. The learned Additional District Judge, on considering the evidence on record, allowed enhancement of compensation for five yielding coconut trees at Rs.6,650/- and Rs.12,000/- was awarded as diminution in land value and thus in total, Rs.18,650/- was awarded as enhanced compensation with 6% interest from the date of cutting of the trees, from the respondent. Against that order, the respondent/Board filed this Civil Revision Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Relying on Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha (2007(3) KLT 1) learned counsel for the Board contended that determination of compensation made by the Court below is not in consonance with the principles and guidelines given by the apex Court and so much so, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge suffers from jurisdictional infirmity and thus liable to be interfered with in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Perusing the impugned order, it is seen that the CRP 439/08 3 Board had assessed the compensation towards the value of trees cut and removed at 10% annuity and the Court below taking note of the principles laid down in Kumba Amma v. Kerala State Electricity Board (2000(1) K.L.T. 542) passed by this Court, reassessed the compensation payable for fixing such compensation at 5% annuity. I find nothing in the decision rendered by the apex court in Livisha's case (supra) to hold that the assessment of the compensation following the principles laid down in Kumba Amma's case (supra) cannot be made applicable depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The apex Court has held that compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees are concerned, the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course in a case where it is shown that fixation of compensation at 5% annuity would cause prejudice or injury to any of the parties involved depending upon the facts and circumstances in the case, a different yardstick can be applied for. No such special circumstance is made out in the present case to hold that the principles laid down in Kumba Amma's case(supra) are inapplicable to the case. CRP 439/08 4 7. Ext.A1 is a sale deed in respect of a property which is about 50 feet away from the property of the petitioner. In that sale deed, the land value is shown as Rs.49,000/- per cent. The learned Additional District Judge did not rely on Ext.A1 property completely, but on taking into consideration the land value prevailing in that area, fixed the land value as Rs.20,000/- per cent. Ext.C1 plan shows that 2.570 cents is injuriously affected by the drawing of the electric line through the property of the petitioner, which is having only an extent of 5.500 cents. Taking 30% as percentage of diminution in land value and taking the area affected as 2 cents, Rs.12,000/- was awarded as compensation for diminution in land value. Since the court below awarded only a reasonable compensation, I do not find any reason to interfere with that order. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as it is without any merits. Sd/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. tgs (True copy) P.S. to Judge.