IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 2236 of 2001()
1. K.S.E.B
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.M. YOUSAFF
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SC FOR K.S.E.B.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
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
ORDER
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.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
vdv P.A TO JUDGE
