IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 693 of 2008()
1. ANNIE ABRAHAM, AGED 62 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), K.S.E.B.,
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :15/07/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------
C.R.P Nos.693 OF 2008 AND 326 OF 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July 2009
---------------------------------
O R D E R
These two revisions have been filed
against the order dated 09/01/2007 passed by the
Additional District Judge, Palakkad in a petition
filed under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity
Act and Section 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act for
enhanced compensation for the cutting down of trees
to draw a electric line through the property of the
applicant therein. The learned District Judge
following, the guide lines given in ‘Kumbamma v
K.S.E.B'(2001) KLT 542 reevaluated the compensation
payable to the applicant with reference to the
materials tendered including a commission report
collected in the enquiry. The claimant was awarded
enhanced compensation of Rs.26,100/- with 6%
interest from the date of filing of the petition.
C.R.P Nos.693/08 AND 326/08 2
Impeaching the correctness of that order the
respondent has filed C.R.P 326/2008 contending that
the compensation awarded by the court is excessive
and unreasonable. The other revision is filed by
the claimant contending that the parameters taken
by the court to assess the compensation is not
correct and relevant materials produced including
the commission report were not properly appreciated
and the enhanced compensation fixed is very much on
the lower side and reconsideration of the
compensation due for the damages caused is
essential.
2. Both these revisions were heard
together. At the time of hearing it is submitted
by the counsel on both sides that the decision
rendered by the full bench of this court in
‘Kumbamma v K.S.E.B'(2001) KLT 542 has been
considered by Apex court in ‘K.S.E.B v Livisha and
others’ (2007(3)) KLT and it has been held that the
parameters given under that decision cannot be
C.R.P Nos.693/08 AND 326/08 3
applied in all cases. The apex court in the above
judgment in paragraphs (10) and (11) has laid down
the matters to be looked into by the court in
adjudging a claim for enhanced compensation on the
ground of damages caused by cutting down trees and
loss of diminution in the value of land by drawing
of overhead lines through the property. In the
light of the apex court decision, as referred to
above, it is imperative and essential that a fresh
look into the matter after setting aside the
impugned order which is based on ‘Kumbamma v
K.S.E.B’ (2001)KLT 542 is essential. In such
circumstances both revisions are allowed and the
case is remitted for fresh consideration setting
aside the award passed by the Additional District
Judge. Parties are to be given fresh opportunity
to give further evidence if so deserved.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv