IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRP.No. 264 of 2008() --------------------- OP(ELE)No.262/1996 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC-1), ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- M.J. POULOSE, S/O.M.V.JOSEPH MANAYATHU HOUSE, MALIPPARA P.O. PINDIMANA VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.SAJI.P.JOSEPH SRI.SAJITH PAUL MATHEW THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.264 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2011 Order The Kerala State Electricity Board has filed this revision challenging the order passed by the court below awarding enhanced compensation for the trees cut and removed from his property for the purpose of drawing 220 KV electric line. A sum of Rs.68,937/- was paid to the respondent as compensation by the awarding officer. Complaining of inadequacy of the compensation, the respondent filed the petition before the District Court. It was contended that the compensation awarded for 17 yielding coconut trees, 17 yielding pepper wines and other trees situated in the properties which were cut and removed is mostly inadequate. It was also contended that total extent of 78 cents of property virtually became useless because of the drawal of the line. The claim was opposed contending that adequate and reasonable compensation was already awarded and that the claimant is not entitled to get any enhanced compensation. 2. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the claimant. No oral evidence was adduced on the side of the respondent-claimant apart from CRP 264/08 2 Ext.B1 detailed valuation statement. Commissioner's report and sketch were marked as Exts.C1 and C1(a). 3. The court below awarded a further sum of Rs.1,10,962/- as compensation for 17 coconut trees cut and removed from his property and another sum of Rs.7113/- was awarded as enhanced compensation for another coconut tree. For the pepper wines cut and removed from his property, a sum of Rs.18,773/- and also another sum of Rs.585/- were awarded. It is also noted that the compensation for arecanut trees cut and removed another sum of Rs.3594/- was awarded. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the annual yield from one coconut tree, even according to the court below, was Rs.675/-. By multiplying the same, the compensation for one coconut tree was assessed at Rs.11760.53. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the assessment as aforesaid was made by the court below following the Full Bench decision in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542). Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the aforesaid decision was overruled by the Apex Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007(3) KLT 1). Learned counsel further submits that the CRP 264/08 3 method of calculating compensation for coconut trees itself would show that the court below has not followed the correct method in assessing the compensation for the trees cut and removed. Since sufficient particulars are not seen mentioned in the order passed by the court below, it is difficult to find whether the compensation awarded by the court below is just and reasonable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the respondent-claimant contended that the total extent of the property held by him was 78 cents, compensation was awarded for the entire 78 cents fixing the land value at Rs.3000/- per cent. On going through para 11 of the order, it is seen that of the drawal of the line has affected 35 cents of land, probably the land underneath the 220KV line. As compensation for the diminution of land value of 35 cents, the court below has given compensation at 50%. Thus the compensation on that count was worked out at Rs.52,500/-. For another 18 cents also, the court below assessed the diminution in land value at 50% and the compensation for that land was worked out at Rs.27,000/-. For the remaining 25.50 cents also diminution in land value was CRP 264/08 4 calculated at 25%. Thus, the total additional compensation including the compensation for diminution of land value was estimated at Rs.2,62,500.75. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the assessment of the compensation for diminution in land value for the entire 78 cents is unscientific and is not based on any documents. Learned counsel for the respondent would draw the attention of the court with reference to the observations made by the Commissioner in Ext.C1 as to how the utility of the land was reduced by the drawal of the electric line. The petitioner's counsel would submit that it was only a rough estimate made on some surmises or suppositions and not based on any data, the Commissioner has estimated the extent of land that would be affected by the drawal of the line. But it is pointed out by the respondent-claimant that no objection whatsoever was filed by the Board before the court below questioning the correctness of the report made by the Commissioner. In this connection, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that even though the Board did not file objection since on the face of the report, there are incorrect statements with regard to extent of CRP 264/08 5 land alleged to have been affected by the drawal of the line, it cannot be ignored. How the affected area was worked out is not discernible. The K.S.E.B. must also place all materials to help the court to determine the area so affected. How the entire area was affected by the drawing of line is not discernible from the materials placed before court. It has to be redetermined by the court and for that matter, it has to be remanded to the lower court. But at the same time, the finding entered by the court below that the land value at the relevant time was Rs.3000/- is only to be confirmed. 6. In the result, this revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the O.P.(Ele.)No.262 of 1996 is remanded to the Additional District Court, Ernakulam for fresh disposal. The parties will appear before the court below on 4.4.2011. The court below will dispose of the matter at the earliest and at any rate within two months from the date of re-opening of the court after summer vacation. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd CRP 264/08 6