IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 596 of 2005 --------------------- (OP(ELE.)113/2000 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA) REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.S.E.BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------ RAJAN, SON OF SANKARAN, OORULLAYIL HOUSE, KONNATHADY P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.SABU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.R.P NO. 596 OF 2005 ORDER ON I.A.NO. 1580 OF 2005 IN C.R.P NO. 596 OF 2005 DISMISSED. 04.03.2008 SD/- K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... C.R.P. No. 596 OF 2005 ................................................................................... Dated this the 4th March, 2008 O R D E R The Kerala State Electricity Board has filed this Revision challenging the award dated 02.08.2004 in O.P.(Ele.) No.113 of 2000 on the file of the court of Addl. District Court, Thodupuzha. For drawing Koothunkal-Panamkutty 110 K.V. line, trees were curt from the property belonging to the respondent. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Board, the respondent filed O.P.(Ele.)113 of 2000 before the court below claiming enhanced compensation of Rs. Three lakhs. 2. The court below held that the claimant is not entitled to challenge the yield assessed by the Board as he had not produced any evidence. It was also held that he is also not entitled to any compensation on account of diminution of land value. This finding was arrived at on the ground that no evidence was adduced by the claimant. As regards the deductions made, the court below held that the deduction at 60% for rubber and coffee and at 48.75% for other improvements made by the Board was not reasonable and deductions were limited to 40% in the case of rubber, 30% in the case of coffee and 25% in the case of other improvements. I am of the view that the findings of the court in this regard are just and reasonable. As regards the compensation for the trees cut, the court below has followed the decision of the Full Bench in Kumba Amma vs. K.S.E.B.( 2000 (1) K.L.T. 542) and had taken 5% return as the basis for calculating compensation. On the basis of these findings, the court below held that the respondent/claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.20,659/- with interest at 9%. I am of the view that the amount awarded by the court below is just and reasonable and no interference is called for. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk