IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 CRP.No. 366 of 2008() --------------------------- OP(EL.E) 98/2003 of ADDL. D.C. , ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ JAMEELA BEEVI, W/O.HAKEEM, ALAVELIKKAKAM, PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs M.N. KRISHNAN,J. ........................................... C.R.P.NO.366 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 17th day of January, 2011. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Additional District Court, Alappuzha in O.P.(EA) No.98/2003. It was an application filed for compensation as a line was drawn over the property. The district court after considering the materials passed an award for ` 38,736/=. It is against that decision, the Board has come up in appeal. The respondent has not entered appearance in court in spite of notice. 2. Heard. The point that is argued before me is regarding the annuity taken at 5% relying on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B (2000(1) KLT 542). By virtue of a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1), a change has taken place. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: “The situs of the land, by distance between the high voltage electricity line laid : 2 : C.R.P.NO.366 OF 2008 there over, 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 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”. 3. Therefore, the dictum followed by the trial court cannot be allowed to be the rule in the light of the Supreme Court decision and therefore the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the trial court. It is necessary to have inputs regarding the land, particulars of fruit bearing trees etc in order to resolve the dispute between the parties. 4. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court with a direction to permit all concerned to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. : 3 : C.R.P.NO.366 OF 2008 parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 25.2.2011. Since the respondent has not entered appearance before the court, the Kerala State Electricity Board is directed to take out notice to her for a proper disposal of the matter. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : C.R.P.NO.366 OF 2008