IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 304 of 2008()
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REMADEVI P., D/O PARUKUTTY,
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
For Respondent :SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :27/01/2011
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
C.R.P. NO. 304 OF 2008 D
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011
O R D E R
The first respondent filed O.P.(Ele.) No.30 of 2005, on the file
of the Court of the Additional District Judge I, Mavelikkara, claiming
enhancement of the compensation for cutting of trees and for
diminution of land value. By the order impugned, the court below
enhanced the compensation. Challenging the order, the Kerala
State Electricity Board has filed this Civil Revision Petition.
2. For drawing Kayamkulam-Edappon 220 KV electric line, 21
yielding coconut trees, three non-yielding coconut trees and other
trees were cut and removed. The Board granted compensation on
the basis of 10% annuity. The court below, following the Full Bench
decision in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542), enhanced
the compensation taking the basis as 5% annuity.
3. As regards the diminution of land value, no evidence was
adduced by the claimant/first respondent. However, taking into
account the number of trees cut, the court below held that the
C.R.P. NO.304 OF 2008
:: 2 ::
affected area would be 20 cents of land. Though the first respondent
claimed land value at ` 40,000/- per cent, the court below reckoned
`5,000/- as land value and enhanced compensation was granted on
that basis, taking 20% of the market value as compensation for
diminution of land value. The court below also awarded ` 7,969/- as
compensation for delayed payment.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in
view of the decision of the Supreme Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha
(2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)), the matter requires reconsideration by the
court below.
5. In K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)), it was held as
under:
“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
C.R.P. NO.304 OF 2008
:: 3 ::
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.”
6. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in K.S.E.B. v.
Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)), it is necessary to consider the matter
afresh by the court below. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is
allowed, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remanded
to the court below for fresh disposal in the light of the principles laid
down in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)) and other binding
precedents. Both the parties will be entitled to adduce additional
evidence, documentary and oral, to substantiate their respective
contentions.
The parties shall appear before the court below on 28.2.2011.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/