IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 CRP.No. 1129 of 2004() ---------------------- EOP.47/1998 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, K.S.E. BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (L.A), K.S.E. BOARD, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------- 1. BEEKKUTTY, W/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, THOTTUPALLAM CHOLAPPALLAYIL, PERINGOTTUKURUSSI, PALAKKAD. 2. AMINA, W/O. SIDDIQUE, ALIKKAL, PANAYUR P.O., VANIYAMKULAM, PALAKKAD. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP.No. 1129 of 2004 ORDER ON I.A. NO.2748/2004 IN C.R.P.NO.1129/2004 DISMISSED 07/01/2011. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 1129 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Additional District Judge, Palakkad in OP(Ele)47/98. The court below after considering the materials awarded a sum of Rs.43,889.68. It is against that decision the Electricity Board has come up in revision. 2. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent. The applicants before the court below had claimed compensation for the trees cut and removed and towards diminution of land value on account of the drawl of Thrissur – Calicut 220 KV line. The trial Court on a consideration of the materials and relying upon the dictum laid down in a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. 2000 (1) KLT 542) took CRP NO. 1129 of 2004 -:2:- the annuity factor at 5% and calculated the amount. The position has changed by virtue of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha and others reported in 2007 (3) KLT 1. It has been held in that case that though it may be easier for the acquisition officer or reference Court to follow a particular formula it may not be proper and every case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of that case and same thing was extended to the case involving fruit bearing trees as well. So the calculation of compensation on the basis of a formula is not approved and individual consideration has been held to be a right approach by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. So it is a matter that has to be ascertained and for looking into that matter evidence has to be furnished in that CRP NO. 1129 of 2004 -:3:- angle and it is on that basis a final decision has to be taken. Therefore it has become necessary to send back the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration on that point in accordance with law. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court with a direction to decide the matter in the light of the decision reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha and others reported in 2007 (3) KLT 1 and I also make it clear that only one award has to be passed and the trial Court shall not compartmentalize it into preliminary and final award as it is a deprecated practice and not enjoined by the statute. For the purpose of deciding the case, let both the parties be permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective CRP NO. 1129 of 2004 -:4:- contentions and then the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 24.2.2011. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- [true copy] P.A. To Judge.