IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 CRP.No. 123 of 2008 OP(ELE.) NO.292/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE I, MAVELIKKARA REVISION PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SMT. RADHA SADANANDAN, D/O. CHIRUTHA, KOCHU VEETTIL, MAHADEVIKADU MURI, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SMT.FIYMY, D/O. CHIRUTHA, KOCHU VEETTIL, MAHADEVIKADU MURI, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. SRI. SANJEEV KUMAR, S/O. CHIRUTHA, KOCHU VEETTIL, MAHADEVIKADU MURI, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2009, ALONGWITH C.R.P.NO.146 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ C.R.P. NOS.123 & 146 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009 O R D E R The common order in O.P.(Ele.) Nos.292 of 2002 and 318 of 2002, on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge I, Mavelikkara, is challenged by Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, the first respondent in the cases. 2. For the purpose of drawing Kayamkulam-Pallom 220 KV electric line, coconut trees were cut and removed from the property belonging to the respondents in the Revision Petitions. The respondents own an extent of 98 Ares of property in Sy.No.328/11 of Arattupuzha Village. 74 coconut trees were cut from the property which is involved in O.P.(Ele.) No.318 of 2002 while eight coconut trees were cut from the property involved in O.P.(Ele.) No.292 of 2002. 3. A sum of Rs.2,67,146/- and a sum of Rs.16,443/- respectively were awarded as compensation to the respondents. C.R.P. NOS.123 & 146 OF 2008 :: 2 :: The respondents contended that the compensation awarded was very low. Accordingly, they filed the petitions before the court below claiming enhanced compensation under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act. 4. The respondents claimed a total sum of Rs.26,79,854/- as compensation in O.P.(Ele.) No.318 of 2002, but they restricted the claim to Rs.25 lakhs with interest and solatium. The claimants in O.P.(Ele.) No.292 of 2002 claimed a sum of Rs.2,93,557/- as enhanced compensation, but they restricted the claim to Rs.2,50,000/- with interest and solatium. 5. The respondents herein contended before the court below that the yield and value of the property were not taken note of in awarding compensation. The property is situated in an important locality. It is situated on the southern side of a public road and near a lake. The property has commercial and industrial importance. The respondents claimed the market value of the property at Rs.45,000/- per cent. They also claimed compensation on account of diminution of land value. Before the court below PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A7 and C1 were marked. No oral and documentary C.R.P. NOS.123 & 146 OF 2008 :: 3 :: evidence was adduced on behalf of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited. 6. The only point raised for consideration by the court below was “whether the petitioners are entitled to get any enhanced compensation and if so, what is the quantum of compensation payable”. 7. The court below arrived at the following findings: (1) There is no dispute regarding the number of trees cut. (2) No acceptable evidence was adduced on the side of the claimants to prove that the value adopted in the case of non-yielding coconut trees is not correct. (3) As regards the value of the commodity and the yield, no acceptable evidence was adduced on the side of the claimants. (4) The decision in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542) was relied on by the court below and it was held that the claimants will be entitled to compensation by taking 5% annuity instead of 10% annuity taken into account by the Department. (5) There is no evidence to show that the property will fetch a market price of Rs.40,000/- per cent. (6) There is no evidence to indicate that the property is situated in a commercial or industrial area. The property C.R.P. NOS.123 & 146 OF 2008 :: 4 :: has no tourism potential. (7) The court below fixed the market value of the property at Rs.4,000/- per cent. (8) As regards diminution of land value, the court below fixed the rate at 20%, taking into account the value of the land at Rs.4,000/- per cent. 8. On the above findings, the court below arrived at the conclusion that the claimants in O.P.(Ele.) No.318 of 2002 are entitled to an additional sum of Rs.2,17,592.30. The court below held that the claimants in O.P.(Ele.) No.292 of 2002 are entitled to an additional sum of Rs.12,573.73, in addition to the amount awarded. 9. The revision petitioner contended that the court below has not properly taken note of the evidence on record in fixing the compensation awarded. The amount awarded under the head “diminution of land value” is excessive. Even if an electricity line was drawn over the property, the respondents could use the property for cultivating other crops and take the necessary yield. After having held that the land in question has no commercial or tourism potential, the compensation fixed by the court below is too high. C.R.P. NOS.123 & 146 OF 2008 :: 5 :: 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the principles of law have been well settled in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)), wherein it was held as follows: “10. 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 value of the land would also be a relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, in a given situation may lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used.” 11. The counsel pointed out that most of the connected cases were allowed and the cases were remanded to the court below for fresh consideration in the light of the principles laid down in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)). 12. In view of the fact that connected cases have been remanded to the court below for fresh consideration in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha C.R.P. NOS.123 & 146 OF 2008 :: 6 :: (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)), I am of the view that a reconsideration of the cases is necessary. Accordingly, the common order under challenge is set aside. The court below shall dispose of the cases afresh in the light of the principles laid down in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)). It is made clear that both the parties would be entitled to adduce additional evidence and put forward all the contentions. In other words, the cases are kept open for consideration of all the issues afresh. The Civil Revision Petitions are allowed as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/