IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 142 of 2006() ------------------------------- OP(ELE.)169/1999 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: PETITIONERS: ------------------------------ 1. RAJALEKSHMI, KANJIRAPPALLIL HOUSE, VERUVALLY BHAGOM,KAYAMKULAM, KEERIKKADU, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. 2. SASI KUMAR G., KANJIRAPPALLIL HOUSE, VERUVALLY BHAGOM,KAYAMKULAM, KEERIKKADU, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. 3. PUSHPA, KANJIRAPPALLIL HOUSE, VERUVALLY BHAGOM,KAYAMKULAM, KEERIKKADU, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ARUN KUMAR RESPONDENTS: CR.PETITIONERS: ------------------------ KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 142 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Mavelikkara in O.P.(Ele.)169/99 whereby the Court below awarded a compensation of Rs.67,886/-. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that the Court had not taken into consideration the gravity of injury that is caused to the property and has also failed in giving a proper market value for the property as well as diminution in land value. It is submitted that the line has been drawn at a distance of 267 feet with a width of 81 feet, at some places 31 feet and at some other places 19 feet also. Therefore it is submitted that it is not possible to cultivate any large yielding varieties and since there are two towers going through the middle of the property the sustainment of injury to the remaining land also is high. 2. It is true that the Court below has relied upon the dictum laid down in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542) whereby the annuity factor of 5% is taken on a CRP NO. 142 of 2006 -:2:- regular basis. But in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1) the Apex Court held that each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case and held that the following guidelines are to be looked into. “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.” 3. Therefore, each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a uniform assessment of compensation. Now, it is projected in the revision petition that on account of the existence of two CRP NO. 142 of 2006 -:3:- towers and also having drawn the line through the major portion of the property both lengthwise and breadth wise, there is substantial injury caused and therefore the value of trees, diminution in land value etc. have to be individually and separately assessed. I feel there is some force in the contention raised in the revision memorandum. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for fresh consideration in the light of the enunciated principles laid down in 2007 (3) KLT page 1. The parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 25.2.2008. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-