(1.) Both these revision petitions are by the Kerala State Electricity Board against the orders of the District Court passed under S.16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 The District Judge by these impugned orders determined the compensation payable to the respective claimants on applications made by them under S.16(3) of the Telegraph Act read with S.51 of the Electricity Act, 1910. In both the cases compensation was claimed for the trees cut as well as for diminution in value of the land for the reason of the drawal of overhead power lines across the land. The learned District Judge has allowed compensation under both the heads based on the revised valuation statements submitted by the respective claimants.
(2.) The learned single Judge before whom these cases came up for hearing bad some doubt as to whether compensation for injurious affection can also be awarded in addition to compensation for the trees cut determined on the basis of capitalisation of income. These cases were accordingly referred for decision by a Division Bench.
(3.) A preliminary objection is raised by counsel for the respondents about the maintainability of the revision petitions in view of the decision of a learned single Judge in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Thampi ( 1988 (2) KLT 941 ). The learned Judge, following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai ( 1987 (1) KLT 53 -- AIR 1987 SC 203 ) and South Asia Industries (P) Ltd. v. S. B. Sarup Singh ( AIR 1965 SC 1442 ) has held that no revision lies against the determination of compensation by the District Judge under S.16(3) of the Telegraph Act. The learned Judge felt that an earlier decision of this Court by Viswanatha Iyer J. in K.S.E. Board v. C.G. Narayanan ( 1973 KLT 968 ) does not cover the point regarding the maintainability of the revision and as the point, according to the learned Judge, is res integra, it was open to him to consider the question in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above.