IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 859 of 2005()
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VASU, S/O. KANNAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :21/10/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
C.R.P.No.859 of 2005
---------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009
O R D E R
Revision is directed against the order dated 31.3.2003 in
O.P.No.217 of 1998 passed by the Additional District Judge,
North Paravur. The above O.P. was filed by the respondent
claiming enhanced compensation for loss and damages caused by
the drawing of the overhead lines through his property situate in
survey No.481/16A of Koovappady Village. The application was
filed under Section 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and
Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act. Petitioner/respondent in
the O.P., Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as
the Board, admittedly, drew overhead lines through the property
of the petitioner having an extent of 1.24 acres for the purpose of
a 110KV line. Towards the cutting and removal of the valuable
trees which included 22 yielding coconut trees, aged 20 years,
the Board assessed and fixed compensation at the rate of
Rs.96,275/- and it was accordingly awarded to the respondent.
Impeaching the compensation provided as inadequate and
C.R.P.No.859 of 2005
2
unreasonable and seeking enhanced compensation the above
petition was filed. The Board resisted the application contending
that reasonable compensation had been paid to the claimant.
2. In the enquiry on the claim petition no material was
produced by both sides. Learned District Judge taking note that
the Board had assessed and fixed compensation at 10% annuity
in respect of the trees cut and removed, following the guidelines
given in Kumba Amma v. KSEB (2000 (1) KLT 542) refixed the
compensation adopting 5% annuity of return for such trees. On
such reassessment it was found that the claimant was entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.80,104.80/-. However, court
allowed such compensation after deducting the sum due as
timber value as it was of the view that the amount thereof has to
be reduced. The view so taken by the court is apparently
erroneous as the claimant is entitled to have timber trees cut and
removed as per the Manual of Tree Cutting Compensation. Since
there is no challenge on the reduction so made by the
respondent/claimant, in the revision filed by the Board,
interference on that count is not called for. Whatever that be,
C.R.P.No.859 of 2005
3
after making such reduction the Board has fixed enhanced
compensation at Rs.72,094/- directing the Board to pay such
compensation with 9% interest from the date of cutting of the
trees till realization. No tenable ground has been brought to my
notice to impeach the correctness of the enhanced compensation
so awarded by the court below on having a reassessment of the
compensation in accordance with the guidelines in the decision
referred to above. I find no impropriety or illegality in the order
passed by the court below in awarding of enhanced
compensation.
Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-