IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 398 of 2008()
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ABDUL HAMEED, S/O.ABDULKHADER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
For Respondent :SRI.MOHAN IDICULLA ABRAHAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :17/01/2011
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
-----------------------------------
C.R.P.No.398 of 2008
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2011
O R D E R
The respondent filed O.P.(Ele.) No.113 of 2004 on
the file of the court of the Additional District Judge of
Alappuzha, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by
the Kerala State Electricity Board, on account of the trees
cut from the property of the respondent for drawing
Punnapra-Edathua 110 KV line.
2. The court below relied on the decision reported in
Kumba Amma vs. KSEB (2000 (1) KLT 542) and
enhanced the compensation for the trees cut. As regards
the claim for diminution of land value, the court below
enhanced the compensation amount even after finding that
there is no injurious affection as contended by the
respondent. It was also found that an extent of 10
cents was injuriously affected. Fixing the market value
CRP No.398/2008 2
at ` 10,000/- per cent, compensation was awarded for the
diminution of land value as well. The total enhanced
compensation awarded is ` 23,195/-.
3. In Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Livisha and
others (2007 (6) SCC 792), the Supreme Court held thus :
“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 tract 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. In 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.”
CRP No.398/2008 3
4. In view of the principles laid down in Kerala State
Electricity Board vs. Livisha and others (2007 (6) SCC 792),
I am of the view that the matter requires fresh consideration
by the court below. Accordingly, the order impugned is set
aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for
fresh disposal in accordance with law. Both the parties will
have an opportunity to produce documents and to adduce
such other evidence. The parties shall appear before the court
below on 18th February, 2011.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above.
K.T.SANKARAN
JUDGE
csl