IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 CRP.NO. 517 OF 2009() -------------------------------- OPELE.33/2001 OF I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, PUNALUR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. PADMAKUMARI, D/O.BHARGAVI AMMA, AISWARYA MATOM, THALAVOOR P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. 2. PREETHA, D/O.PADMAKUMARI, AISWARAYA MATOM, THALAVOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL FOR R1 & 2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.517 of 2009 ==================================== Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 O R D E R This revision petition is filed at the instance of the Kerala State Electricity Board challenging enhanced compensation awarded by the learned First Additional District Judge in O.P(Ele.) No.33 of 2001. For the purpose of drawal of 11 KV line certain trees were cut and removed from the property of respondents and petitioner awarded a sum of Rs.6,780/-. Dissatisfied with that, respondents approached court below with a claim of Rs.3,05,000/-. Petitioner resisted the claim contending that compensation awarded is reasonable and that on any count no further amount is payable. Learned Additional District Judge awarded Rs.65,000/- towards value of improvements as claimed by respondents relying on her evidence as P.W.1. So far as compensation for tree cutting is concerned, no amount was awarded since timber was given to the respondents. But learned Additional District Judge held that had the trees stood there respondents would have benefited much from that and from the claim of Rs.1,40,000/- under that count 10% was awarded as compensation. So far as compensation for diminished land value C.R.P. No.517 of 2009 -: 2 :- is concerned it is seen that the extent of land affected is seven cents and Rs.1,000/- per cent was awarded as compensation. Award is under challenge at the instance of the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that award passed by the learned District Judge is without any basis and without following the decision in K.S.E.B v. Livisha (2007 [3] KLT 1). Learned counsel for respondents per contra contended that amount awarded is too law and that even though report of Advocate Commissioner shows that 7 cents of land has been completely rendered useless on account of drawal of line, compensation was awarded only at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per cent. According to the learned counsel land value fixed as Rs.1,000/- per cent is meagre. 2. I am not going into the question whether amount awarded is excessive or meager as both sides contended. But it is seen from the award under challenge that there was no proper consideration of relevant aspects while awarding enhanced compensation. The sum of Rs.65,000/- awarded as value of improvements was without reference to the relevant decisions on the point. Award was passed merely based on evidence of P.W1. It is also seen that additional compensation awarded for tree C.R.P. No.517 of 2009 -: 3 :- cutting was on the assumption that had it continued there respondents would have benefited better and on that account without any basis 10% of the amount claimed was awarded as compensation. Learned Additional District Judge has to consider the evidence on record as well as principles of law laid down by this Court to decide the actual compensation due to the respondent. Resultantly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh consideration of the claim made by the respondents as well as the contentions raised by petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding excessiveness or otherwise of the amount awarded by the learned Additional District Judge. Parties shall appear in the court below on 01.07.2010. Learned District Judge shall dispose of the case within three months from that day. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv