IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 553 of 2005() --------------------- OPELE.143/2002 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- M.K.AYYAPPAN PILLAI, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, MULLUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUDAYATHOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.TOMY SRI.MATHEW SKARIA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... C.R.P. No. 553 OF 2005 ................................................................................... Dated this the 10th January, 2008 O R D E R The Board challenges the award in O.P. (Electricity) No. 143 of 2002 on the file of the court of the Addl. District Judge, Thodupuzha . By the award impugned, the court below awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 12,997/- to the respondent . For drawing Moolamattam-Karimkunnam 66 K.V. line, trees were cut from the property of the respondent. The Board assessed the compensation at Rs. 14,787/-. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded, the respondent approached the court below by filing O.P. (Electricity), claiming additional compensation. The court below did not grant any additional compensation on the ground of diminution of land value as no evidence was adduced by the respondent. So also, the court below did not interfere with the yield assessed by the Board. As regards the valuation of pepper-vines, instead of Rs. 187.41 per Kg awarded by the Board, the court below fixed the value at Rs. 190.54 per Kg. This amount was fixed, taking into account the value fixed by the Board in certain other cases. 2. The Board had made deduction at 43.75% towards maintenance and cultivation expenses. It was held by the court below that this is excessive and it was re-fixed at 40% for coconut, 35% for arecanut and 25% for other improvements. The rate of return was taken as 5% following the Full Bench decision in Kumba Amma vs. K.S.E.B. ([2000 (1) K.L.T. 542 (FB) ]. I am of the view that there is no ground to interfere with the well considered order passed by the court below. All aspects of the case have been taken note of by C.R.P. No. 553 OF 2005 2 the court below. It cannot be said that the amount awarded by the court below is excessive. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk