K.S.E.B vs Subhadramma on 6 January, 2011

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 439 of 2001(C)



1. K.S.E.B
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. SUBHADRAMMA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.K.VENU NAYAR, SC, KSEB

                For Respondent  :SRI.ESM.KABEER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :06/01/2011

 O R D E R
               M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
          = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
             C.R.P. NO. 439 OF 2001
        = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
    Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011.

                    O R D E R

This revision petition is preferred against

the order of the Additional District Judge,

North Paravur in OP(Ele)51/97. It is the case of

the petitioner that compensation awarded for

yielding and non yielding trees from the

property is meager and unreasonable. The amount

calculated is not proper. After enquiry the

learned District Judge granted a compensation of

Rs.27,814/- and it is against that decision the

Electricity Board has come up in revision.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the

Electricity Board as well as the respondents.

The methodology adopted by the learned District

Judge is by taking 5% as the annual return for

the yielding trees. This was done so by the

trial judge on the basis of the decision of this

CRP NO. 439 of 2001
-:2:-

Court reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. 2000

(1) KLT 542). But subsequently in K.S.E.B. v.

Livisha and others reported in 2007 (3) KLT 1

the position has been changed and it has been

held that there cannot be a uniform practice of

taking a particular percentage as the annual

return and each case has to be decided on the

facts and circumstances of each case especially

in relation to fruit bearing trees as well. So

this matter can be decided only when evidence is

produced in that angle and the matter is

decided. So the matter requires reconsideration

by the trial court. Therefore on this point

alone the award under challenge is set aside and

the matter is remitted back to the trial court

for considering that point in the light of the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported

in 2007 (3) KLT 1 and for the said purpose both

CRP NO. 439 of 2001
-:3:-

the parties be permitted to adduce both

documentary as well as oral evidence in support

of their respective contentions and then the

matter be disposed of in accordance with law.

Parties are directed to appear before the trial

court on 24.2.2011.

The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

ul/-

CRP NO. 439 of 2001
-:4:-

M.N. KRISHNAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = =
C.R.P. No. 439 OF 2001
= = = = = = = = = = =

O R D E R

6th January, 2011.