IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 988 of 2004() --------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER IN E.O.P. 116/99 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR) REVN. PETITIONERS: PETITIONERS. ------------------------------ 1. P.P.ANTONY, S/O.PAILY, R/A. PORATHAN HOUSE, VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, AKANADU KARA, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, MUDAKUZHA P.O. 2. P.P.JOHSON, S/O.PAILY, R/A. PORATHAN HOUSE, VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, AKANADU KARA, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, MUDAKKUZHA P.O. 3. P.P.SUNNY, S/O.PAILY, R/A. PORATHAN HOUSE, VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, AKANADU KARA, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, MUDAKKUZHA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT. ------------------------ KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, K.S.E.BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 988 OF 2004 --------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, North Paravur, in E.O.P. 116/99. Petitioners claimed an additional compensation of Rs.20,98,500/- and the court below awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 7,186/-. 2. Aggrieved by that compensation, the present revision petition is preferred. It is seen that 14 coconut trees, 2 arecanut trees, a number of mutti trees, 3 edana trees, a palm tree and some bamboo clusters were cut and removed. It is also alleged that a veetti tree (rose wood) was also cut and removed. According to the petitioners, on account of this, 18 cents of land has become useless and therefore petitioners have claimed a huge compensation. The court below did not accept the Commissioner's report in toto regarding the age of coconut trees. Similarly, the court also did not grant any compensation for diminution of land value. When trees are cut and removed and if there is an electric line drawn certainly, there will be some limitations in cultivation. For example, a coconut tree cannot be replanted in that area. Similarly, trees which will grow up to a considerable height also cannot be cultivated. So certainly, there will be limitation imposed on the usage of land, which is lying directly under the electric line or in and around the said line. C.R.P. NO.988/04 2 3. This is a matter which has not been considered by the court below in the proper perspective. Similarly, if the petitioners are able to establish that age of the trees at that time was 12 years so far as coconut trees are concerned then certainly the petitioners will be entitled to a larger compensation. So I feel this is a fit case where an opportunity has to be given to the petitioners to put forward their contentions by adducing evidence to prove the same. Necessarily, the court below has to follow the dictum laid down by this court in K.S.E.B v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1]. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below with a direction to consider the entire matter afresh after affording equal opportunities to both sides to adduce both documentary and oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in the light of the decision of the Apex court in K.S.E.B v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1]. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 20.2.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.988/04 3