IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 706 of 2006() --------------------- OPELE.195/2004 of IInd ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- KSEB, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ ABDURAHIMAN M., S/O.SOOPY, AGED 58 YEARS, MANATTUPOYIL HOUSE, IRINGATH.P.O., KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SUBAIR, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, MANATTUPOYIL HOUSE, IRINGATH.P.O. KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON 18/11/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 706 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009. ORDER Aggrieved by the award of enhanced compensation by the District Court, Kozhikode in O.P.(Ele) 195 of 2004, Kerala State Electricity Board has come up in revision. 2. The trees and other improvements standing in the property of the petitioner before the court below were cut and removed by the Board for drawing an 110 KV electric line. According to the Board, after making a proper assessment a sum of Rs.21,886/- was paid as compensation, which was received by the petitioner before the court below without any objection. Subsequently, the petitioner before the court below approached the District Court for enhanced compensation. The District Court has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.31,757/-. C.R.P. 706/2006. 2 3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the court below has relied on the decision reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542) for the purpose of assessment of compensation in this case. That is no longer a good law, according to the learned counsel, in view of the decision reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007(3) K.L.T. 1 (SC)). In short, according to the learned counsel, the order passed by the District Court needs to be set aside. 4. A perusal of the order of the court below shows that 11 bearing coconut trees were cut and removed along with several other trees. The District Court has re-calculated the compensation due to the petitioner before the court below on the basis of the decision reported in Kumba Amma's case. To that extent, it can be said that the matter requires to be reconsidered. But however, one thing needs to be noticed. If on a consideration of various aspects it is found that the additional compensation awarded is reasonable, there is no need to remand the matter to the court C.R.P. 706/2006. 3 below for fresh consideration. 5. It cannot be disputed that several trees were cut and removed from the property of the petitioner before the court below. The petitioner had produced the valuation statement. It is significant to notice that the Board had awarded a sum of Rs.21,886/-. 6. The records indicated that after the petition was filed for enhancement, a tower was installed in the property. The court below has noticed that for the area occupied by the tower only 70% of the market value needs to be paid and the rest of the property 20% as diminution in land value. 7. It is true that though the petitioner before the court below claimed Rs.15,000/- per cent as land value, he was unable to produce any document in support of his claim. The lower court has also noticed that the petitioner did not take out a commission to assess the extent of land affected by the drawing of the line. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the area occupied by the tower is C.R.P. 706/2006. 4 useless. He cannot use the property for any profitable use, though he retains ownership over the same. The court below has taken land value at Rs.4000/- per cent and it is felt that since the tower has been installed after the drawing of the line, compensation awarded by the court below is only just and reasonable even though the compensation in relation to the trees cut and removed as assessed by the lower court may not be strictly in accordance with law. 8. At this distance of time, it is unnecessary to send back the matter for further consideration especially when the enhanced compensation awarded is just and reasonable. The result is that this revision petition is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb. C.R.P. 706/2006. 5 P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 706 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER 18.11.2009