IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 CRP.No. 383 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/12/2007 IN ORDER IN OPELE.74/2005 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ---------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ------------------ ROY, S/O.JOSEPH, KILLIKKIDAYIL FROM PARIMANATH, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.383 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st September, 2008. O R D E R Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondent, claimant, were heard. 2. For drawing Kalamassery-Aroor 110 KV line through the property of the respondent in Survey No.420/23-2 of Aroor Village, Rs.9666/= was awarded in favour of the respondent, as the value of the trees cut. Respondent received the amount under protest and lodged a petition under Section 51 of Indian Electricity Act read with Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. Petitioner, Kerala State Electricity Board, contended that the compensation paid is reasonable. Respondent contended that compensation is not at all sufficient, and no compensation was awarded for diminution of land value. Additional District Judge, Alappuzha, based on Exts.A1 and A2 granted enhanced compensation of Rs.6444/= being the value of the trees cut. It was based on the decision of the Full Bench of CRP.No.383 of 2008 2 this Court in Kumba Amma v. KSEB (2000 (1) KLT 542). Learned District Judge though did not rely on the land value shown in Ext.A1 sale deed, fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.20,000/= per cent and holding that 5 cents is injuriously affected by drawing of electric line and thereby there is a diminution of land value to the extent of 30%, fixed compensation at Rs.30,000/= under that head. The award is challenged in this petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that though respondent filed CRP.No.377 of 2008 challenging the award, it was dismissed finding that compensation granted is reasonable, and, therefore, the revision petition filed by KSEB is also to be dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that enhanced compensation for the value of the trees cut was granted based in Kumba Amma's case (supra), which was later modified by the Apex court in Livisha v. KSEB (2007 (3) KLT 1), and, therefore, the enhancement is not sustainable. Learned counsel also argued that there is no basis for fixing the land value at CRP.No.383 of 2008 3 Rs.20,000/= or diminution of land value affecting an extent of 5 cents, as no commission is taken out. 4. There is force in the submission. The fact that revision petition filed by the respondent was not admitted will not prevent petitioner from challenging the award. When it is found that enhanced compensation for the value of trees cut was granted based on Kumba Amma's case, and not based on Livisha's case, it cannot be uphold. Similarly, no basis was shown why it is found that there is diminution of land value to an extent of five cents. It is more so, when even a commission was not taken out. In such circumstances, the order in O.P.(Ele) No.74 of 2005 is quashed. Original Petition is remanded to Additional District Court, Alappuzha, for fresh disposal, in accordance with law. Both parties are entitled to adduce further evidence. Learned District Judge to fix the compensation afresh. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.