IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 CRP.No. 697 of 2006() ----------------------------- OP(ELE.)NO.122/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. ANILKUMAR, S/O. CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI AGED 42 YEARS, KOTTARATHIL KIZHAKKETHIL AYIKKATUMOOLA MURI, CHINGOLI VILLAGE, CHEPPAD P.O. 2. SASIKUMARI, D/O. RADHAMANI AMMA -DO-. -DO-. REV.PETIONERS 1 & 2 REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SAROJINI PILLAI, 68 YEARS, D/O.KUTTY PILLAI KOTTARATHIL KIZHAKKATHIL, AYIKKATTUMOOLA MURI, CHINGOLI VILLAGE, CHEPPAD P.O. BY ADV. SRI.G.ANANTHANARAYANAN SRI.B.RAJEEV KOYICKAL RESPONDENTS:CR. PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REP. BY CHIEF MANAGER, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NANGIARKULANGARA P.O., HARIPAD. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY SECRETARY, KSEB, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) - R1 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB - R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ C.R.P. NO. 697 OF 2006 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is filed challenging the compensation awarded by Additional District Court, Mavelikkara in O.P.(Ele.) No.122 of 2002 for drawing Kayamkulam - Edamon 220 KV Electric line. Trees from the property of the petitioners were cut and a total compensation of Rs.26,091/- was awarded. Contending that the compensation award was unfair and meagre petitioners filed OP.(Ele.) 122 of 2002 under Section 16 of Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 51 of Indian Electricity Act. Respondents contended that reasonable compensation has been awarded and petitioners are not entitled to any enhanced compensation. Learned District Judge, on the evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A6, granted an enhanced compensation of Rs.15,244/- with interest from the date of the petition. Petitioners are contending that the compensation awarded by the District Judge is disproportionate and very low. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondents were heard. CRP697/06 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners argued that the learned District Judge did not grant any compensation for the diminution of land value caused and no compensation was granted for the coconut saplings which would have started yielding after some years and the value of yield assessed is also low and hence the award is to be set aside. Learned counsel relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in K.S.E.B. v. Maranchi Matha (2008 (1) KLT 1038) argued that petitioner is entitled to get interest on the enhanced compensation not from the date of the petition as found by the learned District Judge but from the date of cutting of the trees. 4. The award passed by the District Judge shows that enhanced compensation was granted based on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kumbamma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542). That decision has been subsequently modified by the Apex Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1). In the light of the decision of the Apex Court, award passed by the learned District Judge warrants modification. In such circumstances the revision is allowed. The award passed by CRP697/06 3 Additional District Judge is set aside. O.P.(Ele.) 122 of 2002 is remanded to the District Court for fresh disposal, in accordance with law. Parties are also entitled to adduce further evidence. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-