The Kerala State Electricity … vs N.M.John on 7 November, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 386 of 2005()


1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. N.M.JOHN, S/O.MATHAI,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, 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.Nos.386 & 512 of 2005
             =========================
             Dated this the 7th day of November, 2007


                                ORDER

These civil revision petitions arise out of O.P.(Ele)

Nos.167/2001 and 178/2001 respectively on the file of the

Additional District Court, Thodupuzha. The common question of

law and fact arising in all these cases is what would be the

amount of compensation payable to the claimants for the trees

cut and removed by the K.S.E.B who is the petitioners in this

revisionpetitions. 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.Nos.386 & 512/2005

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 merits of each matters. Having regard to

the facts and situations obtained there accordingly all the orders

under challenge were set aside and matters were remitted to

the High Court for fresh consideration.

3. Apart from the matters dealt with by the Supreme

Court similar and connected matters were pending before this

Court and this Court by different judgments considered the

similar questions and also after relying on the decision of the

Supreme Court in these cases 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

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

C.R.P.Nos.386 & 512/2005

3

each and every cases would depend upon the facts and

circumstances of each cases 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 each

cases has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each

cases 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 orders under revision are 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

case 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.Nos.386 & 512/2005

4

of Supreme Court and based on the oral and documentary

evidence available in these cases as expeditiously as possible.

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE

dvs