IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 2654 of 2001() ---------------------- EL.OP.308/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ K S.E. BOARD, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS: ------------- MEETHALAVEETTIL BHASKARAN, S/O.KARUVAN, PAYAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O.PAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2008, ALONG WITH 378/2003, 380/2003, 381/2003, 382/2003, 458/2003, 459/2003, 463/2003, 682/2003, 684/2003, 685/2003, 748/2003, 749/2003, 754/2003 & 1435 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP.No. 2654 of 2001(C) ORDER ON I.A.NO.29/2004 IN C.R.P.No.2654/2001 CLOSED. SD/-P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE 12/06/2008. \\TRUE COPY// P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.2654/2001 & 378, 380, 381, 382, 458, 459, 463, 682, 684, 685, 748, 749, 754 & 1435 of 2003 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008. O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. In all these cases, the dispute raised is regarding the additional compensation granted by the court below for the trees cut and removed for drawing an 11 K.V. electric line by the Electricity Board. For the enhanced compensation, the court below has fixed interest at 8% per annum. 2. We find on a reading of the common orders passed by the court below, that various fruit bearing trees and other trees were cut and removed for drawing the line in question. The court below, relied upon the dictum laid down by this court in Kumbha v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542) in which it is held that the rate of return has to be fixed at 5%. The valuation for the trees cut and removed was revised based on the general principles applicable in such cases. Compensation for diminution in market value has been fixed at 20%. The market value has been fixed considering various factors, including the importance of the area. 3. The petitioner, even though contends that the additional CRP 2654/2001 etc. -2- compensation granted is excessive, no worthwhile materials have been produced to justify the said contention. As noticed above, the court below has granted enhanced compensation based on the evidence available in accordance with the general principles applicable to such cases. It cannot be said that the additional compensation granted is excessive on any ground. 4. The rate of interest granted is only at 8%n from the date of cutting. The same is not exorbitant, but is a reasonable one considering all the relevant aspects of the matter. We notice that in some cases the court has further directed to grant 12% if the additional compensation is not paid within 6 months. We modify the same and fix it at 8% till the amount is realised. For all these reasons, the revision petitions are disposed of confirming the order passed by the court below with the modification as indicated above. No costs. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ CRP 2654/2001 etc. -3- P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.2654/2001 & 378, 380, 381, 382, 458, 459, 463, 682, 684, 685, 748, 749, 754 & 1435 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 12th June, 2008.