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. 179 of 2008() --------------------- OP(ELE).206/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): 1ST RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- SMT. SANTHAMMA, RAKESH BHAVAN (RAJESH BHAVAN), MAHADEVIKAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 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.179 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2011 Order The Power Grid Corporation of India has come up in revision challenging the enhanced compensation awarded by the First Additional District Judge, Mavelikkara in O.P.(Electricity)No.206 of 2002. For drawing Kayamkulam-Pallom 220 KV electric line, coconut trees and other trees were cut and removed from the properties belonging to the petitioner. Complaining of inadequacy of the compensation, the respondent filed the petition before the District Court. It was contended that 4.05 Ares of land was affected by the drawal of the line and the market value of the property has been diminished on account of the same. It was also contended that the property should have been valued at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent for the purpose of assessing the diminution in land value. 2. The claim was resisted by the petitioner contending that reasonable compensation was awarded by the awarding officer. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the court below awarded a further sum of Rs.46,514/- as enhanced CRP 179/08 2 compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the impugned order was rendered following the Full Bench decision in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B [2000(1) KLT 542(FB)]. That decision is no longer good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007(3) KLT 1). Therefore, learned counsel submits that the court below has erroneously computed the compensation for the trees cut by taking 5% annuity and also granted compensation towards diminution in land value. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that in fact 50% of the land value was awarded towards compensation for diminution in land value as against the practice of allowing 20%. It is also pointed out that no basis has been seen mentioned in the impugned order as to how the additional compensation for the trees cut was arrived at by the court below. Since compensation was awarded by the court below following the decision in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B [2000(1) KLT 542 (FB)] and since that is not good law in view of the Supreme Court decision and also because required particulars are not made available, the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter CRP 179/08 3 has to be remanded to the court below. 4. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and O.P.(Electricity)No.206 of 2002 is remanded to the First Additional District Judge, Mavelikkara. The parties are directed to appear before that court on 31st March, 2011. The court below will dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within two months from the date of reopening of the court after summer vacation. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd CRP 179/08 4