IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 CRP.No. 1092 of 2001() --------------------------------- O.P.206/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------------------- THE K.S.E. BOARD, REP. BY SECRETARY, VAIDHUTHIBHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- T. SOUMINI, D/O.BALAN, THALAPPALLY HOUSE, ANJARAKANDY P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 1092 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Additional District Judge, Thalassery in O.P.206/99. The District Court has granted a sum of Rs.8,471/- with 12% interest on Rs.5,469/-. The main attack is the methodology adopted by the Court in calculating the return. A Full Bench of this Court reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. 2000 (1) KLT 542) held that 5% can be taken as the annuity. This question was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha and others reported in 2007 (6) SCC 792. In the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the situs of the land, the fertility of the land and the yielding capacity of the trees etc. are relevant for consideration and there cannot be a CRP NO. 1092 of 2001 -:2:- uniform practice for taking the return though it may be convenient for a land acquisition officer or a reference Court. The Apex Court held that each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case and in cases of fruit bearing trees also the principle has to be applied. Since the present case has been decided based on the dictum laid down in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. which had undergone change now, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Court below. The Court has to apply the principles embodied in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha and determine the compensation. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court with a direction to permit all concerned to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose CRP NO. 1092 of 2001 -:3:- of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 25.2.2011. Sd/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- [true copy] P.A. To Judge. CRP NO. 1092 of 2001 -:4:- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = CRP NO. 1092 of 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = O R D E R 21st January, 2011.