IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 CRP.No. 1071 of 2001() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ELE. OP.386/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- KERALA STAT ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. BY ADV. SRI. C.K. KARUNAKARAN. RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------- 1. O.K. NARAYANAN, SON OF GOVINDAN, AGED 53 YEARS, GOVIND, PALLIPOIL P.O., MOWENCHERY, KANUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. O.K. RAVINDRAN, S/O. GOVINDAN, AGED 46 YEARS, “SASHA”, KOANNOTHUMCHAL, ELAYAVOOR AMSOM P.O., CHOVVA, KANNUR. 3. O.K. PANKAJAVALLI, D/O. GOVINDAN, AGED 46 YEARS, NEAR THATTANTS KOIZHAKEPURAM P.O., KUTTIYATOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. O.K. SASINDRAN, S/O. GOVINDAN, AGED 44 YEARS, KUNNATH HOUSE, PALLIPOIL, MOWENCHERY, KANUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. O.K. SHYLAJA, D/O. GOVINDAN, AGED 41 YEARS, MALECHOVVA, BEHIND WATER TANK, P.O., CHOVVA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. O.K. SREENIVASAN, SON OF GOVINDAN, AGED 38 YEARS, KOTHAKUNNUMBRAM, PALLIPOIL, P.O., MOWENCHERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 7. O.K. SREEJA, D/O. GOVINDAN, AGED 35 YEARS, PRAKRTHI, KOOPPARAKALAM, CHAKKARAKKAL P.O., MOWENCHERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 8. O.K. NARAYANI, W/O. GOVINDAN, AGED 75 YEARS, KUNNATH HOUSE, PALLIPOIL,, P.O. MOWENCHERRY, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON 14/01/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 1071 of 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010. ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2000 in O.P. No.386 of 1999 before the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery, the respondent before the court below has come up in revision. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they were available before the court below. 2. The respondent before the authority below, for the purpose of drawing a High Tension line, utilised the property belonging to the petitioner. For the said purpose, trees were cut and removed from his property. The Board awarded a compensation, which the petitioner claims was inadequate. He approached the District Court. The District Court granted an additional compensation of Rs.43,190/- with interest at 8% per annum on the amount of Rs.27,165/- from the date of order till payment. Complaining that the CRP.1071/2001. 2 enhancement was too high and was not justifiable, the Board has come up in revision. 3. The fact that a 110 High Tension line was drawn through the property of the petitioner is not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the trees were cut and removed for the said purpose. The Board awarded compensation. Then the petitioner approached the District Court complaining that the compensation was inadequate and insufficient. The District Court found that the petitioners are entitled to timber value as shown in the mahazar prepared by the Board and that was granted. In addition to the said amount, the District Court also found that the value of land at the relevant place was Rs.1500/- per cent and on that basis calculated the diminution in land value. Thereafter the court awarded an enhanced compensation, which has already been referred to. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petition pointed out that the court below has relied on a decision reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) K.L.T. 542). Learned CRP.1071/2001. 3 counsel pointed out that the said decision has been overruled by the decision reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007(3) K.L.T. 1) and therefore the matter requires reconsideration. 5. A reading of the order does not indicate as to what is the basis of the enhancement. The order is not clear in that respect. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Board, the finding of the court below is based on the principle of the decision reported in Kumba Amma's case (supra) That question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the decision reported in K.S.E.B.'s case (supra) and it is said that the principle laid down in Kumba Amma's case (supra) is incorrect. 6. In a similar situation, this court has set aside the order and remanded the case back to the District Court for determination of the issue in the light of the principles laid down in the decision in K.S.E.B.'s case (supra). The facts of the said case are almost similar to the facts of the case on hand. CRP.1071/2001. 4 Therefore, this revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below for fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of what has been stated above. The parties shall appear before the court below within two months from the date of this order. There will be no order as to costs. Send a copy of this order to the District Court. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb. CRP.1071/2001. 5 P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 1071 of 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER 14.01.2010