IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 352 of 2008()
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOSEPH, S/O.MATHEW, PAIKADA HOUSE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :22/07/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
C.R.P. No.352 of 2008
====================================
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010
O R D E R
This revision petition is filed by the Kerala State Electricity
Board challenging additional compensation awarded by learned
Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha on the application of
respondent. It is not disputed that 66 KV line was drawn through
property of respondent and as compensation for value of
improvements petitioner awarded only Rs.46,369/-. Learned
Additional District Judge found compensation payable as
Rs.1,17,730/- and deducting amount already paid, fixed additional
compensation due and payable as Rs.71,361/-. Taking into
account order passed by this Court in C.R.P. No.196 of 1996
learned Additional District Judge directed petitioner to pay interest
at the rate of 9% per annum. That order is under challenge in this
revision petition. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently
argued that additional compensation awarded by the court below is
excessive and erroneous.
2. So far as datas regarding improvements are concerned
C.R.P. No.352 of 2008
-: 2 :-
it is seen that only change brought in by the learned Additional
District Judge is regarding the price of produces and deduction
for maintenance and other reasons. Though Ext.A1, copy of
Gazette Notification dated 30.01.2001 gives prices of coconut and
arecanut in April, 1999 that was not accepted by the learned
Additional District Judge and instead taking into account similar
awards price was fixed at the rate of fifty paise per arecanut and
Rs.5/- per coconut. Exhibit A2 was produced to show price of
coco at Rs.65.60 per kg during the relevant time. Learned
Additional District Judge fixed price of coco at Rs.20/- per kg. So
far as coffee is concerned, Ext.A3 was pressed into service and as
against Rs.58.30 per kg, only Rs.30/- per kg was awarded. Price
of produces was fixed accordingly which does not call for
interference at the instance of petitioner.
3. Then the next question is regarding deductions. For
coffee petitioner has taken a deduction of 60% while for other
produces it was taken as 43.75%. That according to the learned
Additional District Judge was excessive and hence for coffee
deduction was taken as 30%, for rubber and coconut 40%, for
arecanut 35% and other produces 25%. Having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case I do not find reason to
C.R.P. No.352 of 2008
-: 3 :-
interfere with the said award at the hands of petitioner.
4. So far as rate of return (from the produces) is
concerned following the decision in Kumbha Amma v.
K.S.E.B. (2000 [1] KLT 542) learned Additional District Judge
fixed it as 5%. That also calls for no interference.
5. What remained is rate of interest. Rate of interest was
fixed based on the decision in C.R.P. No.196 of 1996. Considering
the interest prevailing during the relevant time and the
reasoning given by the learned Additional District Judge for
awarding interest at 9% I do no find reason to interfere. Having
considered the order passed by the learned Additional District
Judge and hearing counsel for petitioner I do not find any illegality
or irregularity in the order requiring interference in revision at the
instance of petitioner.
Civil Revision Petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv