IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 161 of 2007() --------------------- (OP (Ele) 20/1993 OF I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD) REVN. PETITIONER: 2ND PETITIONER --------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------ MERCY, W/O. JOHNSON, RESIDING AT LIJI BHAVAN, KARATHUPARAMBU, MUDAPPALLUR VILLAGE, VANDAZHI, ALATHUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 161 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the award of the 1st Additional District Judge, Palakkad in O.P.(Electricity) 20/1993 whereby the 1st Additional District Judge has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.62,095/- with 6% interest. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits before me that the court has relied on the decision of this court reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B [2000 (1) KLT 542] whereby the annuity factor is ordered to be taken as 5%. Learned counsel would argue that in the light of the Apex court decision in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of that case. The Apex has given the guidelines, which is as follows: “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 C.R.P. NO.161/07 2 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. In the light of the above enunciated principles, it is very clear that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the court below. Learned counsel also pointed out to me that there is a calculation mistake committed by the court below in Para. 14 and 15 of the award, which also requires reconsideration. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for fresh consideration, after affording equal opportunities to both sides to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary, in support of their respective contentions and then decide the matter afresh in the light of the principles laid down in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1]. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 25.2.08 M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.161/07 3