IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 791 of 2007() --------------------- OPELE.50/1998 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER: ----------------------------- K. AJITHAKUMARI, THEKKUMKATTIL KIZHAKKATHIL, MELOOR COLLEGE P.O., PATHANAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., HARIPPAD. R1 BY SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2008 ALONG WITH C.R.P. NO.809/07, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. Nos. 791 & 809 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 5thday of February, 2008 ORDER Both these revision petitions are preferred against the award of the First Additional District Judge, Kollam in OP(Electricity) 50/98. CRP 791/07 is preferred by the revision petitioner/ petitioner and CRP 809/07 is preferred by the revision petitioner/respondent. It is seen that the revision petitioner/ petitioner in the case is the owner of 55 cents of land comprised in Sy. No.2531/3 of the Pattazhi Village, which she had obtained in the year 1996. The Power Grid Corporation initially found that 73 rubber trees, which were cut and removed, were not yielding trees and awarded only a compensation of Rs.12,500/- for the same. It also found that there were 24 other rubber trees of which 15 were yielding and the other were not yielding and therefore awarded a compensation of Rs.16,023.20/-. However, no compensation was granted for diminution of land value by the Power Grid Corporation. It was dissatisfied with that, evidence was adduced. The court found that there was an attempt on the part of the respondent regarding the yielding of 73 trees cut and removed. The lower court has extracted “it is also stated in C.R.P. Nos. 791 & 809/07 2 Ext.A3 notice itself that all the 73 trees were yielding trees.’ Therefore, the court below did not accept the contention of the Power Grid Corporation and instead, considered the rubber trees as yielding trees and granted an additional compensation of Rs.65,480/-. So far as the diminution of the land value is concerned, the court found that 22 cents of land were affected and the diminution of land value is fixed at the rate of Rs.500/- per cent and granted Rs. 11,000/-. With respect to the 15 yielding rubber trees, the court found that there are no grounds to give further compensation and declined to accept the same. 2. The grievance of the claimant is that the court has erred in fixing the compensation for the 15 yielding coconut trees and that the compensation awarded for the yielding 73 trees is also grossly inadequate and the percentage of diminution of the land value calculated is low and that the amount fixed for per cent is inadequate and therefore claimed enhancement of compensation of all heads. 3. On the contrary, the Power Grid Corporation would contend that the compensation awarded by the Corporation itself is adequate and since the 73 trees were not yielding, the court erred in granting compensation as they were yielding trees. It also had taken the C.R.P. Nos. 791 & 809/07 3 contention that the diminution of land value is not proper. Now, how the compensation has to be calculated has been laid down by the Apex court in the decision reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] wherein the Apex court held that each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case and for that purpose it has given the following guidelines. “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. 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.” 4. It goes without saying that one has to apply the mind to find out what will be the approximate yield from a rubber tree, what will be the percentage of maintenance charges and what will be the multiplier to be used with respect to the calculation of land value. But, these are all matters which require detailed consideration by the court below. Similarly, so far as the land value is concerned, the C.R.P. Nos. 791 & 809/07 4 court has to take into consideration all the materials available especially when it finds that a tower is situated there, is it correct to award only 30% as diminution of the land value, for the reason that the whole area will become useless. The other factum of percentage also requires consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. I find that the entire matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the court below. The award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for considering the questions afresh, after permitting both sides to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 12.3.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. Nos. 791 & 809/07 5