IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 CRP.No. 304 of 2008 OPELE.30/2005 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA REVN. PETITIONER: 2ND RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- 1. REMADEVI P., D/O PARUKUTTY, SREERANGAM, KAROOR, CHUNAKKARA VADAKKUM MURI, CHUNAKKARA VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NANGIARKULANGARA P.O., HARIPPAD. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ C.R.P. NO. 304 OF 2008 D ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 O R D E R The first respondent filed O.P.(Ele.) No.30 of 2005, on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge I, Mavelikkara, claiming enhancement of the compensation for cutting of trees and for diminution of land value. By the order impugned, the court below enhanced the compensation. Challenging the order, the Kerala State Electricity Board has filed this Civil Revision Petition. 2. For drawing Kayamkulam-Edappon 220 KV electric line, 21 yielding coconut trees, three non-yielding coconut trees and other trees were cut and removed. The Board granted compensation on the basis of 10% annuity. The court below, following the Full Bench decision in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542), enhanced the compensation taking the basis as 5% annuity. 3. As regards the diminution of land value, no evidence was adduced by the claimant/first respondent. However, taking into account the number of trees cut, the court below held that the C.R.P. NO.304 OF 2008 :: 2 :: affected area would be 20 cents of land. Though the first respondent claimed land value at ` 40,000/- per cent, the court below reckoned `5,000/- as land value and enhanced compensation was granted on that basis, taking 20% of the market value as compensation for diminution of land value. The court below also awarded ` 7,969/- as compensation for delayed payment. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)), the matter requires reconsideration by the court below. 5. In K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)), it was held as under: “10. The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small track of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion would be determinative. The value of the land would also be a relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, in a given situation may C.R.P. NO.304 OF 2008 :: 3 :: lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used. 11. So far as the compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees are concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” 6. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)), it is necessary to consider the matter afresh by the court below. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below for fresh disposal in the light of the principles laid down in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)) and other binding precedents. Both the parties will be entitled to adduce additional evidence, documentary and oral, to substantiate their respective contentions. The parties shall appear before the court below on 28.2.2011. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/