IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 311 of 2008() --------------------- OPELE.145/1996 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: IST RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT NO.2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.AALI, S/O.ABDU HAJI, AGED 54 YEARS, THALIYIL THODIYIL, THRIKKADEERI, ANANGANADI AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. 2. ALAVI, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.ABDU HAJI, THALIYIL THODIYIL, THRIKKADEERI, ANANGANADI AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. 3. MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, S/O.ABDU HAJI, THALIYIL THODIYIL, THRIKKADEERI, ANANGANADI AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK REPRESENTED T.AALI, AGED 54 YEARS, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (LA), KSEB, MALAPPURAM..... DELETED *** NAME OF THE R4 DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DT.6.8.09 ON IA. 2252/09. ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN FOR R1 & 2 SRI.R.MANIKANTAN FOR R1 & 2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON 21/12/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. ----------------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.311 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 21st December, 2011. O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the first respondent Kerala State Electricity Board in O.P.(Ele) No.145/96 on the file of the District Judge, Palakkad. Respondents 1 to 3 herein were the petitioners in that O.P., which was filed by them under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Section 42 of the Electricity Supply Act. 2. The case of the petitioners in O.P.(Ele) No.145/96 is briefly a follows : For the purpose of drawing 220 KV overhead electricity supply line, respondents 1 and 2 cut down 12 Palmyrah trees, 7 Coconut trees, 2 Mango trees, 11 Tamarind trees and several other timber trees and wild trees from the petition schedule property comprised in resurvey no.4/1 of Ananganadi Village. The first respondent K.S.E.B. awarded only Rs.17,432/- as compensation for the trees cut and removed. No amount was awarded towards compensation for diminution in land value. The first respondent filed counter, stating that reasonable amount was awarded as compensation. C.R.P.311/08 2 3. Before the District Court, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1, A2, B1, B2 and C1 were marked. The District Court on considering the evidence awarded Rs.26,514/- as additional compensation for the trees cut and removed and Rs.4,000/- towards diminution in land value. Against that order, the first respondent filed this Civil Revision Petition. 4. Relying on the decision reported in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha (2007(3) KLT 1), learned counsel for the Board contended that determination of compensation made by the court below is not in consonance with the principles and guidelines given by the Apex Court and so much so, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge suffers from jurisdictional infirmity and thus liable to be interfered with, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Perusing the impugned order, it is seen that the Board had assessed the compensation towards the value of trees cut and removed at 10% annuity and the Court below, taking note of the principles laid down in Kumba Amma v. C.R.P.311/08 3 Kerala State Electricity Board (2000(1) K.L.T. 542) reassessed the compensation payable for fixing such compensation at 5% annuity. I find nothing in the decision rendered by the apex court in Livisha's case (supra) to hold that the assessment of the compensation, following the principles laid down in Kumba Amma's case (supra) cannot be made applicable depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court has held that as far as compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees are concerned, the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course in a case where it is shown that fixation of compensation at 5% annuity would cause prejudice or injury to any of the parties involved depending upon the facts and circumstances in the case, a different yardstick can be applied for. No such special circumstance is made out in the present case to hold that the principles laid down in Kumba Amma's case are inapplicable to the case. 6. The District Court awarded only Rs.4,000/- as compensation for diminution in land value, taking the market C.R.P.311/08 4 value of the land as Rs.2,000/- per cent and the percentage of diminution in land value was assessed as 20% and 10 cents was assessed as the area injuriously affected by the drawing of 220 KV line. Since the learned District Judge has awarded only a reasonable amount as compensation, I find no reason to interfere with that order. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as it is without any merits. There is no order as to costs. M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. tgs