IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933 CRP.No. 93 of 2005(P) --------------------- (AGAINST ORDER IN OP(ELE) 122 OF 1999 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE ERNAKULAM) REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT IN OP ------------------------------------------------------------ THE EKRALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. P. SANTHALINGAM,SR.S.C. KSEB SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER IN OP ------------------------------------------------ GEORGE, S/O.JOH, KAKKANATT VEETTIL, THALACODE P.O., NERIAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.V.J.JOSEPH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2011, THE COURT ON 17/11/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 93 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of November, 2011 ORDER This C.R.P. is filed by the respondent K.S.E.B in O.P.(Ele.) No.122 of 1999 on the file of the Addl. District Court (Adhoc-II), Ernakulam. In that case, the Court below on considering the evidence on record awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,556/- as compensation. Challenging the quantum of compensation the respondent/K.S.E.B filed this C.R.P. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 3. For the purpose of drawing 220 KVDC line through the respondent's property some trees were cut down and removed. The Board has paid compensation Rs.57,874/- in accordance with the existing law. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Board, the respondent herein approached the Court below claiming enhanced compensation of Rs.34,70,000/- C.R.P. No. 93 of 2005 -: 2 :- 3. 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 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 (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 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 C.R.P. No. 93 of 2005 -: 3 :- 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 (2007(3) KLT 1). 4. Since the case is remanded back to the trial Court, trial Court is also directed to decide the question as to the compensation payable towards diminution of land value also afresh. 5. 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 contentions and then the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 4.1.2012. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/