Judgment : This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha whereby he has passed a final award for realisation of Rs.85,766 with 9% interest from 27.1.1999 till realisation. The court also allowed to claim interest at the rate of 9% per annum on Rs.67,632 for the period from 27.1.1999 till 16.11.2000. It is for the reason that the total amount awarded is Rs.1,53,398/- out of which Rs.67,632/- is already paid. A perusal of the award would reveal that the contention before the court below was that the claim is entitled to a higher price for the coffee and therefore it relies on Ext.A1 copy of a price list issued by the Coffee Board at Bangalore. The court below found that it cannot be made the basis for ascertaining the price of agricultural products in Kerala. The varieties of coffee shown in Ext.A1 are of robusta coffee and the petitioner was not in a position to show the variety of coffee in this case. Therefore, the average price of coffee was taken by KSEB at Rs.15 per kg., but the average price of coffee shown in Ext.A1 is Rs.37.36 per kg. at the relevant time. Considering these facts, the court fixed price of the coffee at Rs.30 per kg. Similarly, regarding the value of are caunut and cashenut, the court took into consideration the previous awards passed by the court and held that the price of arecaunut fixed at ps.50 per nut and cashewnut at Rs.30 per kg. So far as the maintenance is concerned though the State Electricity Board contended that 60% is to be deducted for coffee and for other improvements 43.75%, which appears to be very high. The court considered a uniform method by making 30% for coffee 35% for arecanut and 25% for other improvements. It is true that the court has also taken into consideration the ratio in the decision reported in 2000 (1) KLT 542 i.e., Kumba Amma vs. K.S.E.B. for holding the return at 5%. Even applying the decision in 2007 (3) KLT page 1 i.e., K.S.E.B. vs. Livisha the court can take the materials available in each case to decide the return. Even applying the decision in 2007 (3) KLT page 1 i.e., K.S.E.B. vs. Livisha the court can take the materials available in each case to decide the return. 2, n this case the court has considered the specific materials available and the number of improvements their age, yield capacity, price of materials and the expenses incurred and thereafter, has fixed the return at 5% which is proper. 3. Therefore, one cannot hold that the court has fixed the compensation arbitrarily and therefore, on merit, I find regarding the quantum, it requires no interference. So far as the interest factor is concerned, I feel that the court below has awarded 9% which is to be reduced considering the rate of interest at the time of awarding the amount. I reduce it from 9% to 6%. Therefore, the award under challenge is modified. That is the only modification to the effect that on the amount awarded, interest shall be at the rate of 6% from the respective dates. The C.R.P. is disposed of.