Kerala State Electricity Board vs K.V. Gopalakrishna Pillai on 7 November, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 135 of 2006()


1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. K.V. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :07/11/2007

 O R D E R
                        HARUN-UL-RASHID,J
               ======================
                         C.R.P.No.135 of 2006
              =============-===========
             Dated this the 7th day of November, 2007


                                ORDER

This civil revision petition arise out of O.P.(Ele)

No.204/1999 on the file of the Additional District Court,

Mavelikkara. The common question of law and fact arising in

this case is what would be the amount of compensation payable

to the claimant for the trees cut and removed by the K.S.E.B who

is the revision petitioner in this revision petition. The matter

was taken up before the Honourable Supreme Court for deciding

the question stated above. Ultimately the apex court disposed of

all the special leave petitions by passing a common judgment in

C.A.No.1810/2006 and connected cases. The Honourable

Supreme Court in para 10 and 11 of the judgment explain the

principles to be applied for fixing the compensation, which reads

as follows:

“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 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

C.R.P.No.135/2006

2

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.”

2. In para 11 it was held that compensation in relation to

fruit bearing trees would depend upon the facts and

circumstances of each cases. Therefore, the Honourable

Supreme Court directed that the High Court should consider the

matter afresh on the merit of each matter. Having regard to the

facts and situations obtained there accordingly the order under

challenge was set aside and matter was remitted to the High

Court for fresh consideration.

3. Apart from the matter dealt with by the Supreme

Court similar and connected matters were pending before this

Court and this Court by different judgments considered the

similar question and also after relying on the decision of the

Supreme Court in this case namely K.S.E.B v. Livisha 2007(3)

KLT 1(SC) set aside the orders under challenge and directed

the court below to consider the matter afresh.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for K.S.E.B that, in view

C.R.P.No.135/2006

3

of the fact that the compensation which has to be determined in

this case would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the

case and therefore a fresh consideration by the court below is

necessary in the matter of fixation of compensation. The counsel

also submitted that they may be afforded an opportunity to

adduce such further evidence and produce such other materials

to substantiate their contentions in the light of the decision of

the Honurable Supreme Court in K.S.E.B v. Livisha. In the light

of the fact that additional evidence has to be adduced by both

sides and the fact that the case has to be decided on the facts

and circumstances of the case and the fact that decision has to

be taken by following the principles laid down by Supreme Court

in K.S.E.B v. Livisha, I am of the view that the order under

revision is liable to be set aside and the court below should be

directed to consider the matter afresh.

Accordingly the order under revision is set aside and the

matter is remanded for fresh consideration. The court below

shall afford an opportunity to either side to produce such other

materials and evidence and shall dispose of the case in the light

C.R.P.No.135/2006

4

of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and based on

the oral and documentary evidence available in this case as

expeditiously as possible.

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE
dvs