K.S.E.B. Board rep. by its Secretary v. Mary (CRP 179/2005)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Ashok Menon
Judgment Date: 2021-06-18
Court Decision / Holding: The Revision Petition is dismissed; the impugned order of the District Court is confirmed and the respondent’s claim for additional compensation is not interfered with. The court finds no justification to revise the lower award and accepts the evidence-based approach, guided by the Livisha principles.
Final Disposition: Revision Petition dismissed; impugned order confirmed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.S.E.B. Board rep. by its Secretary, Vyudhyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram; The Deputy Tahsildar K.S.E.B (LA), Power House, Ernakulam

Respondents

Mary, wife of Mani, Oorpayil House, Punno Pad y.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri N.D. Premachandran, SC, KSEB; Sri P. Santhalingam, Sr.; Sri P.A. Ahamed, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRIC BOARD LIMITED

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. C.S. Sheeja

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court Civil Revision Petition concerns compensation awarded for trees cut to facilitate a 220 kV electricity line through the land of Mary (landowner). The District Court, Ernakulam, in Electricity Original Petition No. 389/1996, had awarded initial compensation of ₹15,647 on a mahazar and valuation statement, and later, after objections, granted an additional ₹74,371 with interest, directing payment from 1992 to 1995 as per the valuation. The KSEB challenged this order, arguing that the enhanced figure was not properly calculated, relying on an exceptionally high rubber-tree yield (293 kg/year), an inflated multiplier (13.439), and lack of commission for assessment; it asserted that the earlier award was reasonable and that the mahazar/valuation were not properly revised. The respondent Mary (and her counsel) argued for fair compensation reflecting land value, fruit-bearing trees, and the impact of the power line on land use. The High Court, while noting the applicant’s contentions, relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in KSEB v. Livisha (overruling Kumba Amma) to assess that compensation depends on situs, line extent, and other site-specific factors, and that the Court’s calculation should be grounded in evidence. Ultimately, the judge found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, confirmed it, and dismissed the revision petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910Sections 42 and 60 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

KSEB contends that the additional compensation awarded is highly irregular and illegal, citing a high yield for rubber trees, an inflated multiplier (13.439), and lack ofcommission; it argues the earlier award was reasonable, no revised mahazar/valuation was properly made, and reliance on the Kumba Amma precedent is misplaced since it has been overruled by the Supreme Court in KSEB v. Livisha.

Contentions of Respondents

Mary contends for adequate compensation reflecting the true value of land and trees and the impact of the electricity line; she supports considering situs and other factors per Livisha, arguing that compensation should be determined on evidence and calculation appropriate to the facts.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kumba Amma v. KSEB	2000 (1) KLT 542(FB)	Overruled	Overruled by the Supreme Court in KSEB v. Livisha & Ors (2007) for the standards used in calculating compensation.
KSEB v. Livisha & Ors	(2007) 3 SCC 53; 2007(6) SCC 792	Positive	Cited as the controlling principle for situs, line extent, and factors affecting land value in compensation, and to overrule Kumba Amma.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **FRIDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1943 CRP NO. 179 OF 2005** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ELE.OP 389/1996 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:** 1 K.S.E.BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR K.S.E.B (LA), POWER HOUSE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, KSEB SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM SR. SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** MARY, W/O. MANI, OORPAYIL HOUSE, PUNNOPADY. BY ADV SMT.C.S.SHEEJA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRP 179/2005 2 ## O R D E R Dated, this the 18[th] day of June, 2021 [C.R.P. No. 179 of 2005] This is a revision filed by the KSEB challenging the order of the District Judge, Ernakulam, in Electricity O.P. No.389/1996. 2. The respondent herein had filed a petition under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and under Sections 42 and 60 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. 3. The allegation in the petition is that the employees of the KSEB, entered the property having an extent of 97 cents comprised in survey numbers 641/9, 588 and 588/10 of the CRP 179/2005 3 Mulavoor village and cut and removed valuable yielding and non-yielding trees for the purpose of drawing lower PeriyaKochi 220 K V electricity line and awarded a compensation of ₹15,647/- in accordance with the mahazar and valuation statement prepared by the Deputy Tahsildar, the 2[nd] respondent. It is alleged that the age and income of the trees mentioned in the mahazar and valuation statement are not correct. The income deducted towards dropping and maintenance also is excessive. 78 high yielding rubber trees were cut and removed and the petitioner claimed a sum of ₹ 195,000/-as compensation for those rubber trees. 3 jack trees were cut for which the petitioner claims 5,000/- as₹ compensation. Certain other trees were also cut for which the 4 CRP 179/2005 petitioner has claimed 2000/-. The petitioner would contend₹ that the drawing of the electricity line through the middle of his property has reduced the value of the property. The market value of the property prevailing at that time was ₹ 25,000/- per cent. A sum of ₹ 10,000/-is claimed towards diminution in land value. Altogether a sum of 12,02,000/-₹ is claimed as compensation, together with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the cutting of the trees till realisation. 4. The revision petitioner KSEB opposed the claim, and filed an objection stating that proper and adequate compensation was already awarded to the claimant. Competent officers had prepared the mahazar and the valuation statement based on true facts. Hence, the claimant 5 CRP 179/2005 is not entitled to any enhancement of compensation. Following the filing of this objection, the claimant filed a revised statement limiting her claim to ₹ 109,383/-. The claim was limited to ₹ 79,383/-towards additional compensation for value of trees cut and removed and ₹ 30,000/- was claimed towards diminution of land value. 5. After examining PWs 1 and 2 and considering Ext.A1 sale deed, the petition is allowed in part, and the KSEB was directed to pay an additional compensation of ₹ 74,371/together with interest at the rate of 10% with effect from 27/02/1992 till the date of payment and also interest in the aforesaid rate on the award amount of ₹ 15,647/-from the date of cutting of the trees till 10/03/1995. CRP 179/2005 6 6. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB as also the respondent. Records perused. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the additional compensation awarded is highly regular and illegal. The yield of the rubber trees taken by the Court is at the rate of 293 Kgs per annum, which is very high, by any standards. The calculation of 13.439, as a multiplier is also assailed by the revision petitioner. The award of interest on the additional amount, is also illegal. The claimant did not take up any commission to make assessment. The compensation earlier awarded to the claimant is very reasonable and therefore requires no interference. 7. On a reading of the impugned order, it is seen that the learned trial judge had relied on the decision in Kumba CRP 179/2005 7 Amma vs. KSEB [2000 (1) KLT 542(FB)] and the came to the conclusion that the multiplier should be 20, and the multiplier that is calculated in the present case is only 13.439 and thus, the Court came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to ₹ 87,047.75 as compensation for the cut trees. Even though the KSEB contended that the income mentioned in the mahazar is exorbitant they have not prepared a revised mahazar or revised valuation statement. It is also stated that the deduction is made without any basis. As per the detailed evaluation a sum of 42,576/- was due to the petitioner as₹ compensation for the respondent was awarded only 15,647/-₹ as compensation. No oral evidence was adduced by the KSEB. 8. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Kumba CRP 179/2005 8 Amma (supra) has been overruled by the Apex Court in KSEB v. Livisha & Ors [2007 (3) 53 : 2007(6) SCC 792] , wherein, it was held as 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 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 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.” CRP 179/2005 9 In the instant case, even though the Court had relied upon Kumba Amma (supra), the calculation is made on the basis of the evidence that is adduced. The multiplier is also taken from the Tahasidar's report. The fact that no commission was taken is of no consequence. The land value based on the sale deed produced by the claimant was not considered, as it was of a subsequent year. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is therefore, confirmed and the Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE jg