IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 1884 of 2002()
1. K.S.E.BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.V.GOURI W/O. DEVADAS, KUTHUPARAMBA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, KSEB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :11/03/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------------------------
C.M.Appln.No.4570 of 2002
in C.R.P.No.1884 of 2002
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010
O R D E R
The revision is directed against an order
passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Thalassery in O.P.(Ele.)No.657/99 awarding enhanced
compensation to the respondent for the trees cut and
removed and for injurious affection suffered for the
drawing of overhead electric lines through her
property. The respondent is hereinafter referred to as
‘the claimant’. The revision has been filed with a
petition to condone the delay of 369 days. Though
notice was ordered to the claimant on the delay
petition, despite steps taken, service could not be
effected so far.
2. I heard the counsel for the revision
petitioner, Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Board’) to consider whether
C.R.P.No.1884 of 2002
:: 2 ::
further steps against the respondent is essential for
disposal of the revision on merits, since the revision
had been filed nearly eight years ago. To consider
that question, the merit of the revision filed
impeaching the propriety and correctness of the order
impugned was also considered.
3. The Board had awarded compensation
of Rs.21,627/- towards the loss suffered by the
claimant for the trees cut and removed from her
property. She has claimed enhanced compensation of
Rs.5,13,373/-. Such claims were made in respect of
the trees gut and removed and also towards
diminution of land value by the drawing up of the
lines. Admittedly, the Board has given compensation
only for the loss suffered by the trees cut and
removed. It is also not in dispute that the Board has
assessed such compensation adopting annuity return
of 10%. The learned District Judge, following the
guidelines in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. {2000(1)
C.R.P.No.1884 of 2002
:: 3 ::
K.L.T. 542} re-assessed the compensation payable
adopting annuity return at 5%. On the basis of a
commission report collected diminution of land value
suffered by the claimant by the drawing up of the
overhead lines was considered. After entering a
finding that 25 cents of property has suffered
injurious affection by the lines drawn to the extent of
20% both sides were directed to file statements to
refix the compensation. The claimant alone filed a
statement which was accepted without any objection
by the Board. On the basis of the statement filed by
the claimant which had been accepted by the Board
as correct enhanced compensation was awarded by
the learned District Judge. That order is challenged
in the revision.
4. When the order has been passed on
consent, needless to state, no further challenge is
entertainable by way of an appeal or revision.
Learned counsel for the Board submitted that there
C.R.P.No.1884 of 2002
:: 4 ::
was an error apparent in the order inasmuch as the
claimant had sought for only a sum of Rs.35,000/-
towards enhanced compensation for 7 yielding
coconut trees which had been cut and removed. After
giving credit to the compensation already paid by the
Board on the above claim she was entitled to
Rs.14,000/- only as enhanced compensation for the
trees even if her claim was conceded in toto, submits
the counsel. The court below , according to the
counsel, has awarded an excess amount as enhanced
compensation for the trees, over and above what was
claimed by the claimant. Towards injurious affection
of her land, a sum of Rs.7,500/- alone was awarded as
enhanced compensation by the court, and the rest
was in respect of the trees cut and removed, and to
that extent the order of the court below requires
modification, is the submission of the counsel. I do
not find any merit in the submission as there is no
material to conclude only 7 yielding coconut trees
C.R.P.No.1884 of 2002
:: 5 ::
were cut and removed from the property of the
claimant and the amount awarded by the Board
earlier related to such trees alone. Whatever that be,
if at all there was any error apparent on the face of
the record, the Board should have moved a review
petition within the time provided by law.
At this fag end, i.e. nearly 8 years after the
filing of the revision, the ground canvassed to impugn
the order which had been passed on consent cannot
be entertained. There is no merit in the revision. The
revision and the petition for condoning the delay are
dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)
JUDGE
sk/-
//true copy//