IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 CRP.No. 158 of 2008() --------------------- OPELE.486/2005 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ---------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: ----------------- UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.KELUKUTTY NAIR, AGED 51 YEARS, KOLAKUNNATH HOUSE, P.O. MALAYAMMA, CHATHAMANGALAM AMSOM, MALAYAMMA DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.158 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th August, 2008. O R D E R The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondent were heard at the admission stage. 2. Kerala State Electricity Board has filed this revision petition challenging the award passed by District Court, Kozhikode, in O.P.(Ele.) No.486 of 2005. A compensation of Rs.30,532/= was awarded to the respondent being the value of six coconut trees cut, for drawing the electric line through the property of the respondent. Respondent received the compensation under protest and filed a petition under Section 15 of the Electricity Act. Learned District Judge granted enhanced compensation of Rs.27,277/= based on the decision of this Court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542 (FB). Standing Counsel appearing for the Board submitted that learned District Judge did not take into consideration the dictum laid down by the Apex court in Livisha v. K.S.E.B. (2007 (3) KLT 1), and, therefore, the award is not sustainable. CRP.No.158 of 2008 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that if, on account of the subsequent decision of the Apex Court case is to be remanded to the court below, it may be remanded at the earliest. 4. The learned District Judge did not take into consideration the decision of the Apex Court in Livisha's case (supra), modifying the Full Bench decision in Kumba Amma's case (supra). In the light of the dictum in the Livisha's case, compensation awarded by the District Court warrants interference. The order of the District Judge, dated, 11.12.2006, is set aside. O.P.No.(Ele.) No.486 of 2005 is remanded to the District Court, Kozhikode, for fresh disposal, in accordance with law. 5. Parties are directed to appear before the District Court on 28.8.2008. Civil Revision Petition is disposed as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.