IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 CRP.No. 439 of 2001(C) ---------------------------------- OP.(ELECTRICITY)NO.51/1997 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.C.K. KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUBHADRAMMA, W/O.LATE GOPALAN NAIR, MAEMATTATHIL, VEMBILY P.O., KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 2. VIJAYALEKSHMI M.G., W/O.MURALI, THACHATH, TRIPUNITHURA. 3. M.G. ASOKAN, S/O.LATE GOPALAN NAIR, MAEMATTATHIL, VEMBILY P.O., KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 4. M.G. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. LATE GOPALAN NAIR, MAEMATTATHIL, VEMBILY P.O., KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (LA), K.S.E.BOARD, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.E.S.M. KABEER, SRI.K.M.IBRAHIMKUTTY. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs CRP.No. 439 of 2001(C) ORDER ON C.M.P.NOS.921/2001 & 6865/2002 IN C.R.P.NO.439/2001 DISMISSED 06/01/2011. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 439 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Additional District Judge, North Paravur in OP(Ele)51/97. It is the case of the petitioner that compensation awarded for yielding and non yielding trees from the property is meager and unreasonable. The amount calculated is not proper. After enquiry the learned District Judge granted a compensation of Rs.27,814/- and it is against that decision the Electricity Board has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Electricity Board as well as the respondents. The methodology adopted by the learned District Judge is by taking 5% as the annual return for the yielding trees. This was done so by the trial judge on the basis of the decision of this CRP NO. 439 of 2001 -:2:- Court reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. 2000 (1) KLT 542). But subsequently in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha and others reported in 2007 (3) KLT 1 the position has been changed and it has been held that there cannot be a uniform practice of taking a particular percentage as the annual return and each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case especially in relation to fruit bearing trees as well. So this matter can be decided only when evidence is produced in that angle and the matter is decided. So the matter requires reconsideration by the trial court. Therefore on this point alone the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for considering that point in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 (3) KLT 1 and for the said purpose both CRP NO. 439 of 2001 -:3:- the parties be permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 24.2.2011. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- CRP NO. 439 of 2001 -:4:- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. No. 439 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = O R D E R 6th January, 2011.