K.S.E.B vs T.M. Yousaff on 10 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.S.E.B vs T.M. Yousaff on 10 March, 2010




CRP.No. 2236 of 2001()

1. K.S.E.B
                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SC FOR K.S.E.B.

                For Respondent  : No Appearance


 Dated :10/03/2010

 O R D E R
                   S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J
                     C.R.P No.2236 OF 2001
               Dated this the 10th day of March 2010


The revision is filed by the respondent in O.P No.33 of

2000 challenging the order passed by the learned Additional

District Judge, Thalassery awarding enhanced compensation to

the claimant/petitioner in that O.P. Petitioner is the Kerala State

Electricity Board hereinafter referred to as the Board. For the

purpose of drawing 220KV high tension electric line through the

property of the claimant, some trees were cut down. Towards

compensation thereof the Board paid a sum of Rs.3,576/- to the

claimant. Dissatisfied with the sum paid, the claimant filed the

above O.P for enhanced compensation. That petition was

considered along with similar claims raised by some adjoining

owners of property through which also the line had been drawn by

the Board for the very same purpose.

2. After enquiry, the learned District Judge awarded

enhanced compensation of Rs.5,056/- with interest. Now the

revision is filed against that order that too with a petition to

condone delay of 32 days. Though notice on the delay petition

was issued to the respondent, service could not be effected so far.

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner to examine whether

the revision has to be entertained condoning delay though notice

C.R.P No.2236 OF 2001 Page numbers

had not been served on the respondent as the revision has been

pending before this court for the last more than nine years. From

the submissions made, and perusing the order impugned, I find

no interference is called for in exercise of the revisional

jurisdiction as the sum awarded as enhanced compensation is

very meagre. Admittedly the Board has assessed the

compensation towards the trees cut down adopting annuity return

of 10%. The learned District Judge reassessed the compensation

adopting annuity return of 5% following the guidelines given in

“Kumba Amma v Kerala State Electricity Board” (2000(1)

KLT 542). So far as fixation of compensation over the trees cut

down, no uniform rule is applicable and a little bit of arbitrariness

is inescapable. Having regard to the fact that the enhanced

compensation awarded is only Rs.5,056/- and such order has

been passed on the materials tendered in the case which were

found creditworthy to the learned District Judge, I find this is not a

fit case where exercise of revisional jurisdiction is called for.

Delay petition and the revision are dismissed.


                   //TRUE COPY//

vdv                                         P.A TO JUDGE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *