IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 CRP.No. 243 of 2009 OPELE.42/2002 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC-1), ERNAKULAM REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & 2ND RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. JOY, KUNNATHUVEETTIL,KUTTAMANGALAM OONNUKAL P.O., ERNAKULLAM DISTRICT. 2. KUNJAMMA, W/O. JOY, KUNNATHUVEETTIL, KUTTAMANGALAM, OONNUKAL P.O., ERNAKULLAM DISTRICT. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (LA) FOR KSEB, POWER HOUSE ROAD, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.NOEL JOSEPH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ C.R.P. NO. 243 OF 2009 A ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 O R D E R The Kerala State Electricity Board challenges the order dated 30.6.2008 in O.P.(Ele.) No.42 of 2002, on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge (Adhoc I) Ernakulam. By the order impugned, the court below awarded in favour of respondents 1 and 2 an enhanced compensation of `52,312/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of cutting of trees. 2. For drawing 220 KV Lower Periyar-Thrissur electric supply line, trees were cut from the property belonging to the respondents. The respondents were not satisfied with the amount awarded by the Electricity Board. Accordingly, O.P.(Ele.)No.42 of 2002 was filed by the respondents claiming enhancement of compensation. 3. The court below relied on the decision of the Full Bench in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542) and awarded compensation on account of trees cut taking 5% as the annual C.R.P. NO.243 OF 2009 :: 2 :: return. Thus a compensation of ` 42,311.79 was arrived at on that ground. As regards the claim for diminution of land value, the court below held that respondents 1 and 2 herein are entitled to a sum of `9,750/-. 4. In K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)), it was held as under: “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. 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. 5. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in K.S.E.B. v. C.R.P. NO.243 OF 2009 :: 3 :: Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)), it is necessary to consider the matter afresh by the court below. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below for fresh disposal in the light of the principles laid down in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)) and other binding precedents. Both the parties will be entitled to an opportunity to adduce additional evidence, documentary or oral, to substantiate their respective contentions. The court below shall dispose of the matter expeditiously. The parties shall appear before the court below on 28.2.2011. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/