IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 127 of 2007 ----------------------------- OP(ELE.)173/1997 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC-1), ERNAKULAM .................................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- SRI.P.K.PANKAJAKSHAN, AGED 58, S/O.KANDAN BAVA, PATHUKANDATHIL, VYTTILA. BY ADV. SRI.A.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 127 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Ernakulam in O.P.(Ele.)173/97 whereby the Court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.1,05,685/- with 6% interest. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits before me that the said amount has been arrived at on the basis of the dictum laid down by the decision of this Court reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542) which is so stated in paragraph 5 of the award. But the learned counsel would submit that in the light of the decision laid down by the Apex Court reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1) each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case and the Apex Court has laid down the following guidelines. “The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon as also W.P.C 127 OF 2007 -:2:- 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. So, in the light of the above said enunciated principles of the Apex Court the matter requires reconsideration. Therefore I set aside the award of the Court below and remit the case back to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording equal opportunities to both parties to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 31.3.2008. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-