IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 345 of 2005()
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RAVI, THEKKEPPARAMBIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB
For Respondent :SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :11/03/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------------
C.R.P.No.345 of 2005
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010
O R D E R
Revision is directed against the order
passed in O.P.(Ele)No.48/01 by the Additional
District Judge, Thodupuzha granting enhanced
compensation to the respondent/claimant. The
respondent in the above original petition, the
Kerala State Electricity Board [hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Board’] has filed the
revision challenging the enhanced compensation
awarded to the respondent [hereinafter referred to
as ‘the claimant’] towards loss suffered by him
by the drawing of Koothumkal-Panamkutty 110
KV line through his property. The Board has cut
and removed some trees from the property
of the claimant for the drawing of line. The
Board assessed and paid compensation of Rs.28,957/-
towards the loss suffered by the claimant.
C.R.P.No.345 of 2005
:: 2 ::
Dissatisfied with the compensation paid, the
claimant filed the above original petition seeking
enhanced compensation.
2. The learned District Judge re-assessed
the compensation with reference to the materials
produced and awarded enhanced compensation of
Rs.18073/- to the claimant directing the Board to
pay the said sum with interest fixed. The amount
so awarded is excessive and unreasonable is the
challenge raised by the Board in the present
revision impeaching the correctness of the order
rendered by the learned District Judge.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the Board
contended that no worth mentioning evidence was
tendered in the case to claim any excess amount
C.R.P.No.345 of 2005
:: 3 ::
than what was awarded and paid earlier.
5. Perusing the impugned order, I find that
the court below has re-assessed the compensation
taking note that the Board had adopted annuity
return of 10% to assess the compensation payable
for the trees cut and removed. Following the
principles laid down in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B.
{2000(1) K.L.T. 542}, the court below directed both
the parties to file statements to re-assess the
compensation adopting annuity return at 5%. I do
not find any impropriety or illegality in the
direction given by the court below for re-assessing
the compensation in the lines indicated as above.
Pursuant to such direction only the claimant filed
a statement. It appears that the said statement
was not only not challenged by the Board, but,
practically, conceded to. Re-assessment of the
C.R.P.No.345 of 2005
:: 4 ::
compensation with respect to the trees cut and
removed adopting the annuity return of 5% gave rise
to the enhanced compensation of Rs.18,073/- and
that was ordered by the learned District Judge. By
no stretch of imagination the compensation so paid
can be considered as excessive or unreasonable.
There is no merit in the revision. Revision
dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)
JUDGE
SK/-
//true copy//