IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 CRP.No. 119 of 2007() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/10/2005 IN OP(ELE).29/1999 IN OP(ELE).23/1999 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------- LALITHA DAVID, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.DAVID, DEEPTHI, PEYAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2011, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 688 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NOs. 119 of 2007 & 688 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011. O R D E R These revision petitions are preferred against the order in O.P.(Ele) Nos.23/99 & 29/99 of the Second Addl. District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. C.R.P.119/07 is filed by the petitioner for enhancement and the other revision is filed by the K.S.E.B. for reduction. The Court below after consideration of the entire materials had fixed the amount of additional entitlement at Rs.17,498/-. It is against that decision the present revision is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides. After hearing both the sides it can be seen from the materials available that 44 trees aged 2 years had been cut and removed in the case. Taking into consideration only the C.R.P. NOs. 119 of 2007 & 688 OF 2007 -:2:- cultivating expenses the Court below has awarded only a nominal sum of Rs.100/- per tree as the cultivating expenses for two years. It is true that the position is referred to by the trial court but under such circumstances two options are there, one is to give some more compensation for the trees or to see that some enhancement is given for the diminution of the land value. Otherwise the very purpose will be defeated and the other principal borne of contention is regarding the loss of area which according to the petitioner there is a total loss of about 10 cents of land. The Court below has held that the tower is constructed in an area having 1.5 cents. The Commissioner's report was given for perusal by the counsel and it would show that there is an area surrendering it. He would submit that 10 cent is used as protected area and therefore no type of cultivation is possible C.R.P. NOs. 119 of 2007 & 688 OF 2007 -:3:- in that area. The land value should be given in full for that area. But in the chief examination when the Commissioner was examined he speaks about that protected area but in the cross-examination he would submit that there are rubber trees standing in the so called protected area. This cannot go together and therefore this is a matter which requires consideration and K.S.E.B. also should be precisely in a position to show that when a tower is erected how much of land has to be left vacant for the safety and other things in connection with the maintaining of the tower as well. Thus the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Court below. 3. In the connected case which I disposed of today I have fixed the land value at Rs.13,000/- and I feel that the same can be adopted in this case as well. So on that point C.R.P. NOs. 119 of 2007 & 688 OF 2007 -:4:- there need not be a reconsideration. 4. In the result both the CRPs. are allowed and the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration. Parties are permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 5.3.11 and it is made clear that let there be an expeditious disposal, within three months from the date of first appearance of parties. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-