IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 CRP.No. 877 of 2006() --------------------- OP(ELE.)NO.100/1996 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: -------------------------- SRI.C. PUSHPANGADHAN, S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, PUSHPAVILASOM, KUTHIRAKULAM P.O., VELLANADU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.3152/2006 IN C.R.P.NO.877/2006 DISMISSED 28.1.2011. SD/= M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. cl M.N. KRISHNAN,J. ........................................... C.R.P.NO.877 OF 2006 ............................................. Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Second Additional District Judge, Thiruvanandapuram in OP(Ele)No.100/1996. Trees were cut and removed for the purpose of erecting a tower and the court below granted a sum of `30,494.60 as additional amount after deducting `5,739/= already paid. It is against that decision, the Electricity Board has come up in revision. 2. Though the respondent was served, he has not entered appearance. A perusal of the award would reveal that the court below has followed the dictum laid by a Full Bench of this Court reported in Kumba Amma v. KSEB (2000 (1) KLT 542 FB) wherein this Court held that the annuity return shall be 5%. In the case reported in KSEB v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there cannot be a uniform practice of adopting a standard formula for arriving at a decision though it may be easier for an acquisition officer or reference court. The : 2 : C.R.P.NO.877 OF 2006 Supreme Court held that situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid there over, and other aspects are to be considered and each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances present therein. 3. After going through the entire matter, I feel that the court below has been only just in awarding a reasonable amount for the trees cut as additional compensation. But I find that the purpose of acquisition was for the construction of a tower and the tower has been constructed only in one cent of land. The court below held that since 42 rubber trees are cut and removed, 21 cents of land will be affected and for the other two trees also it calculated and arrived at the land affected as 25 cents. It is also stated that for the land utilized for the purpose of the tower, total amount of `3,000/= has been awarded, but for the balance 24 cents it held that the diminished land value will be 20% and therefore calculated the compensation. When a tower is erected, it almost proceeds in a straight line. There is nothing to show that the magnetic field therein will affect any sort of cultivation in the 24 cents of land. Other than : 3 : C.R.P.NO.877 OF 2006 cashew, rubber or coconut, seasonal cultivation can be done and one cannot hold that the other land will become useless. The methodology adopted by the court below that just because such and such trees are cut, so much of land will become useless will not be correct. Even if maximum allowance is granted because incapacity to plant trees which gross tall, I think all practical purposes the diminished land value can be fixed at 15%. When it is done for 24 cents of land, it will come to `10,800/=. `18,000/= is granted by the court. So there has to be a reduction of `7,200/=. When that is deducted from the amount of `30,494.60, the entitlement for additional compensation would be `23,294.60 with 9% interest on the amount till payment from 1995. The award is modified accordingly and the revision petition is disposed of . M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : C.R.P.NO.877 OF 2006 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A/A.S/C.R.P.NO.OF ............................................. 17th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T/O R D E R