IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRP.No. 631 of 2007() ------------------ OP (E.A.) NO.121/2003 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. .............. REVISION PETITIONER / PETITIONER : ---------------------------------------------------------- PADMINI KARUNAKARAN, MANEZHATHU, AROOR, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.GB.PANICKER SRI.G.SUDHEER (THURAVOOR) SRI.P.C.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT / COUNTER PETITIONER : ----------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP: BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, K.S.E.B. PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI. C.K. KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------- C.R.P. No. 631 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2011 ORDER This Revision petition is field by the claimant in O.P(EA) No.121/2003 before the Additional District Court, Alappuzha. 2. For the purpose of drawing 110 KV electric transmission line as part of Aroor -Mararikulam project the respondent put up a tower in 4.03 ares of property in Survey No.406/22 owned and possessed by the petitioner. She claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- alleging that 3 cents have been lost on account of the construction. The Board contend that adequate compensation was awarded and the property has not been rendered useless on account of the construction. 2. It appears that the petitioner produced Exts.A1 to A3 and commissioner's report was also available. According to the commissioner, the value per cent in that area is Rs. 49,000/-. Ext.C1 shows that the property of the petitioner is 800 metres towards west from the N.H. Tower has been erected in a portion of the property of the petitioner. The lower court on evaluation of the report found 1.25 cents was affected and found that land value could be reasonably taken as 12,000/- per cent and accordingly awarded Rs.15,500/- towards diminution in land value. C.R.P. No. 631 of 2007 2 That is challenged in the revision petition. The petition was unsuccessful in showing that the lower court has erred in any manner in granting the amount. The area was disclosed by commissioner report and value of land taken seems reasonable. There is no reason to take a different view. Petitioner is not entitled to get more amount. The C.R.P. is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. ln