IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1284 of 2004(E) ---------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 13/02/03 IN ELE. OP.812/1999 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY) .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB. RESPONDENTPETITIONER: --------------------------------------- N.P.RAJU, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 50 YEARS, BUSINESS, CHAIL HOUSE, KOTTAYODI, PATTIAM AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.VIDHYA. A.C. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 3458/2004 IN C.R.P. NO. 1284/2004-E DISMISSED 14/01/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 1284 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Thalassery in O.P.(Ele.)812/99 whereby the Court has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.22,244/-. The Court granted an amount of Rs.12,970/- for the loss of utility of land and an additional compensation of Rs.8,589/- for additional value of trees cut. While doing so the Court applied the dictum of this Court laid down in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542). The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has brought my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1) where the Apex Court has held that each case is to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case and had given the following guidelines. C.R.P. NO. 1284 OF 2004 -:2:- “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. 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 the light of the above said enunciated principles the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Court below and therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for fresh consideration after permitting both the sides to adduce C.R.P. NO. 1284 OF 2004 -:3:- documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. The parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 22.2.08. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-