IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 959 of 2006 --------------------- ( OP (EA.)24/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA ). REVN. PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------ POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP.BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------- 1. T.V.THOMAS, S/O.GEEVARGHESE, THUNDANGIPARAMBIL, THALAVADY VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. 2. ALEYAMMA MATHEW, W/O.T.V. MATHEW, THUNDANGIPARAMBIL, -DO-, -DO-. 3. K.M.VARGHESE, S/O.T.V.MATHEW, -DO-, -DO-. 4. JACOB MATHEW, -DO-, -DO-. 5. CHERIAN MATHEW, -DO-, -DO-. 6. OOMMAN MATHEW, -DO-, -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/04/2008, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 254 of 2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ............................................................................ C.R.P. Nos. 959 OF 2006, 254, 368, 427, 460, 471, 491, 500, 618 AND 683 OF 2007 ............................................................................ Dated this the 11th April, 2008 O R D E R These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the orders passed by the Addl. District Judge, Alappuzha disposing of several Original Petitions filed by the owners of land claiming additional compensation on account of the trees cut for drawing Kayamkulam- Pallam 220 K.V. Electric line and Kayamkulam-Edamon 220 K.V. Electric Line. Except C.R.P.No.500 of 2007, all other Revisions are filed by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. C.R.P.No.500 of 2007 is filed by the claimant . The respective claimants claimed additional compensation for the trees cut and also claimed compensation/additional compensation on account of diminution of land value. 2. The court below followed the decision in Kumba Amma vs. K.S.E.B. [2000 (1) K.L.T. 542 (FB) ] where annuity factor was taken as 5%. Compensation was fixed on the basis of the principles laid down in Kumba Amma's case on account of the trees cut. 3. On account of diminution of land value, the court below awarded compensation on the basis of insufficient data. In some cases, commission was not taken out, while in some others, Commissioners were appointed. The exact affected area was not clear in some cases. Different rates were adopted in different cases as market value of the land. A uniform method was not adopted in all cases while fixing C.R.P. Nos. 959 OF 2006, 254, 368, 427, 460, 471, 491, 500, 618 AND 683 OF 2007 2 the land value. This was because in some cases, the parties took out commission, while in others they did not. Documents were produced only in some cases. The Power Grid Corporation also did not produce necessary documents and materials to prove as to the exact area affected in each and every case. On the basis of the materials available before the court, it had to fix the compensation on account of diminution of land value. Some sort of guess work also became necessary for the court to fix the compensation. If the relevant materials were placed before the court, the affected area due to drawal of line could be easily ascertained by the court below and compensation could be fixed appropriately in each case. There was no uniform method in all cases in the matter of fixing the land value as well. 4. The Supreme Court held in K.S.E.B. vs. Livisha [ (2007 (3) K.L.T. 1 (SC)] “10. 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. 11. 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. 5. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Livisha's case and in the nature of the evidence and data made available before the court, I am of the view that C.R.P. Nos. 959 OF 2006, 254, 368, 427, 460, 471, 491, 500, 618 AND 683 OF 2007 3 the matter requires to be remanded to the court below for fresh disposal in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Livisha's case. It is also apposite to note here that C.R.P.Nos. 660 of 2004 and connected cases, arising from similar Original Petitions, which were disposed of by the Addl. District Court, Alappuzha, were allowed and remanded for fresh consideration. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the cases are remanded to the court below for fresh disposal in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Livisha's case and other binding precedents and also on the basis of the evidence. The parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence and to produce such other documents as are relevant. It is made clear that on a re- consideration if the court finds that the amount to be awarded as compensation is higher than the amount already awarded , nothing prevents the court from awarding the amount and the relief need not be denied to the claimants only on the ground that they have not filed Civil Revision Petitions challenging the award now passed. This observation is being made since the cases are being remanded mainly at the instance of the Power Grid Corporation Ltd., who failed to produce the relevant materials before the court. No order as to costs. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk