High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2012-01-18Civil Revision Petitions dismissed; lower court...

Kerala State Electricity Board v. M. Uchira (CRP Nos. 474, 475 & 476 of 2008)

Case / Petition Number:CRP Nos. 474, 475 & 476 of 2008

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. T. Sankaran
Judgment Date: 2012-01-18
Court Decision / Holding: Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
Final Disposition: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed; lower court’s order stands.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Kerala State Electricity Board represented by its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram

Respondents

M. Uchira, W/o M. Gopalan Valliyattil Koodanam, P.O. Periya Kasaragode District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri S. Ramesh Babu

Case Synopsis & Summary

These Civil Revision Petitions challenge a common order of the District Court, Kasaragod, dated 25 January 2008, which enhanced compensation payable to landowners whose properties were affected by the laying of a 220 kV transmission line. The Kerala State Electricity Board (Board) challenged the lower court’s enhanced awards under OP(Ele) Nos. 82/2000, 90/2000, and 65/2000, contending that the compensation for trees and for diminution of land value was not properly calculated and not anchored in correct precedents. The lower court had awarded enhanced compensation for trees (coconut and cashew) and fixed diminution of land value, applying an annuity basis with 8% interest, while the Board preferred the higher annuity rate it used (10%); it also argued for different land-value figures. The District Court referred to decisions including Kumba Amma v. Kerala State Electricity Board and K.S.E.B v. Livisha. Livisha’s principles guided the court in awarding enhanced tree compensation and determining annuity-based calculations, while Kumba Amma’s 5% interest stand was noted as a contrast. The Commissioner’s land-value report suggested higher values, but the court fixed lower values (2,000 per cent) and 20% diminution. The High Court dismissed the Board’s revisions, upholding the lower court’s well-reasoned order and leaving intact the enhanced tree compensation and land-diminution awards.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The Board contended that the lower court’s enhanced compensation for trees and the fixation of land diminution were not properly justified and did not reflect a consistent, legally sound basis for compensation. It relied on earlier precedents and pointed out that the Board’s own approach used a 10% annuity basis, whereas the lower court applied an 8% rate in the context of Livisha’s principles. It argued that land-value figures proposed by the Commissioner (higher values) were not adopted, and that the court should more strictly adhere to established methods that ensure predictability and avoid exaggerated awards. The Board urged revision of both tree-related awards and the diminution of land value to align with correct precedents and market realities.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the District Court correctly applied Livisha’s principles to determine compensation for trees and land diminution, justifying enhanced awards. They highlighted the court’s careful consideration of the affected extent of land (78 cents, 76.07–76.57 cents, and 2 cents for towers) and its use of an annuity-based calculation that reflected the true value of tree crops and the market value of the land affected. They contended that the land-diminution percentage (20%) and the land-value estimates (within the Commissioner’s reported range) properly balanced just compensation with practical feasibility. They urged the Court to uphold the lower court’s approach and maintain the enhanced tree compensation and land diminution as determined by the original proceedings.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kumba Amma v. Kerala State Electricity Board	2000 (1) KLT 542	Distinguished	Cited by the court but its 5% annuity/interest approach was not adopted in the present case; Livisha’s principles were preferred for the tree-compensation calculations.
K.S.E.B v. Livisha	(2007) 6 SCC 792 = 2007(3) KLT 1 (SC)	Positive	The court applied the Livisha principles in fixing compensation for trees and using an annuity basis, guiding the award of enhanced compensation.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Kerala State Electricity Board v. M. Uchira (CRP Nos. 474, 475 & 476 of 2008) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/28TH POUSHA 1933 ## **CRP.No. 474 of 2008** OP(ELE.) NO.82/2000 OF DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD REVISION PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ---------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ## BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: -------------- M.UCHIRA,W/O.M.GOPALAN VALLIYATIL KOODANAM, P.O.PERIYA KASARAGODE DISTRICT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-01-2012, ALONGWITH C.R.P.NOS.475 & 476 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **I.A.NO.1364/2008 IN C.R.P.NO.474/2008** DISMISSED 18/1/2012 SD/- **K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE** //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ ## **K.T.SANKARAN, J.** ## **-----------------------------------------------------C.R.P. NOS. 474, 475 & 476 OF 2008 -----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of January 2012** ## **O R D E R** These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the common order dated 25.1.2008 in O.P.(Ele) Nos.82, 90 and 65 of 2000 respectively. The revision petitioner is the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). 2. For drawing a 220 KV High Tension electricity line, trees were cut and removed from the properties belonging to the claimants in the three cases. The claimants were not satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Board. Accordingly, the claimants filed the Original Petitions before the court below. The court below awarded enhanced compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the Board filed these Civil Revision Petitions. ## **C.R.P.No.474 of 2008 (O.P.(Ele) No.82 of 2000)** : 3. In this case, for drawing 220 KV line, 12 cashew trees and C.R.P.NOS.474, 475 & 476 OF 2008 :: 2 :: 4 coconut trees were cut and removed from the property of the respondent. The Board awarded a compensation of `1,822/- for the coconut trees and `4,425.66 for the cashew trees. No amount was awarded by the Board on account of diminution of land value. 4. The court below referred to all the relevant decisions on the point including the decisions in **Kumba Amma** v. **Kerala State Electricity Board** (2000 (1) KLT 542) and **K.S.E.B** . v. **Livisha** ((2007) 6 SCC 792 = 2007(3) KLT 1 (SC)). Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles laid down in Livisha's case, the court below held that the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation on account of the trees cut. The court below awarded a sum of `4,470/- as enhanced compensation for the coconut trees and `8,441.34 for cashew trees. Thus, a total compensation of `12,911.34 was awarded by the court below. The court below adopted the annuity basis for fixing the compensation and 8% interest was taken as the basis as against 5% mentioned in Kumba Amma's case. The Board had adopted 10% interest as the basis for fixing the compensation on annuity basis. It cannot be said C.R.P.NOS.474, 475 & 476 OF 2008 :: 3 :: that the compensation awarded by the court below for the trees cut is on the higher side. The court below took into account all the relevant aspects of the case and the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Livisha's case . 5. The Board did not award any amount as compensation for diminution of land value. The court below held that an extent of 78 cents of land was affected by the drawal of the electricity line. There is no dispute that an extent of 78 cents of land was affected. The court below fixed the land value at `2,000/- per cent and diminution was assessed at 20% of the land value. The Commissioner appointed by the Court reported that the land value would be `3,000/- to `5,000/- per cent. However, the court below did not accept the same and fixed the land value at a low rate of `2,000/per cent. The percentage of diminution was also fixed at a low rate of 20% of the land value. The court below awarded a sum of `31,200/- as compensation for diminution of land value. The amount awarded by the court below on this count is also on the lower side. C.R.P.NOS.474, 475 & 476 OF 2008 :: 4 :: ## **C.R.P.No.476 of 2008 (O.P.(Ele) No.65 of 2000):** 6. In this case, for drawing a 220 KV electricity line, 20 cashew trees and 5 coconut trees were cut and removed by the Board. The Board awarded a sum of `10,304/- as compensation for the trees cut. Taking the rate of interest at 8% for fixing the compensation on annuity basis, the court below awarded enhanced compensation of `30,042/-. The amount awarded is not on the higher side. The court below followed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Livisha's case. The court below apparently did not follow the decision in Kumba Amma's case where 5% interest was taken as the basis. 7. The court below awarded a sum of `30,628/- as compensation for diminution of land value. The Board did not pay any compensation at all on this count. The undisputed affected area is 76.57 cents. The court below fixed the land value at `2,000/- per cent, as against the value suggested by the Commissioner at `5,000/- to `7,000/- per cent. The rate of diminution was fixed at 20% of the land value. Thus the court below awarded a sum of C.R.P.NOS.474, 475 & 476 OF 2008 :: 5 :: `30,628/- as the compensation for diminution of land value. The amount awarded as compensation is low. The land value fixed and the rate of diminution adopted are also low. ## **C.R.P.NO.475 OF 2008 (O.P.(ELE) NO.90 OF 2000)** : 8. In this case, the Board awarded a sum of `1,345/- as compensation for four cashew trees cut from the property of the claimant. The court below awarded enhanced compensation of `1,872/-. The same principles as mentioned in the above two cases were followed by the court below in fixing the compensation. The amount of compensation fixed by the court below is on the lower side. 9. The Board did not grant any compensation for diminution of land value. It is not disputed that the affected area is 76.07 cents. The court below fixed the land value at `2,000/- per cent, as against the value suggested by the Commissioner at `4,000/- to `6,000/- per cent. The court below assessed the diminution of 20% of the land value for 76.07 cents. The court below also found that for erecting ## C.R.P.NOS.474, 475 & 476 OF 2008 :: 6 :: towers, an extent of two cents was utilized and the claimant is entitled to the market value for the said two cents of land. Accordingly, the market value for the two cents of land was fixed at `4,000/- and the diminution of land value was fixed at 30,428/-. The amount awarded by the court below on this count is also legal and proper. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the well considered order passed by the court below. For the reasons stated above, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. **(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge** ahz/