IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 CRP.No. 378 of 2005(D) --------------------- OPELE.50/2001 of ADL.D.C. & MACT,THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDEN -------------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ----------------------------------- JOHNSON S/O. JOHN, 37 YEARS, PANDAMMACKAL HOUSE, KONNATHADY P.O., DO. VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 378 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha in O.P.(Ele)50/01. A 110 K.V. line was drawn over the property of the applicant which resulted in cutting and removal of trees rather than fruit bearing trees. The trial court considered the matter in the light of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542) and there the Full Bench directed a percentage of 5% be taken as the annual return. The position has undergone a change by virtue of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, CRP NO. 378 of 2005 -:2:- “The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small track of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion would be determinative.” The Court also held that, “So far as the compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees are concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that fixing a uniform formula may be convenient for the Land Acquisition Officer or the reference Court but it is not correct. Therefore in the light of the change of position of law the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of CRP NO. 378 of 2005 -:3:- the lower Court regarding the value of the trees in the light of the decision in K.S.E.B. v.Livisha. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration regarding the valuation of the trees alone in the light of the decision reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha. The parties be permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 21.3.11. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-