IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 14 of 2007() ---------------------------- OP(ELE).21/2005 of DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ---------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- SRI.K.KUNHIKANNA PODUVAL, S/O.M.GANAPATHI, AGED 71 YEARS, PENSIONER, KANDAMBATH, VALLYAPARAMBA, KODAKKAD, KASARAGOD DIST. R1 BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. No.14 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 9th day of January 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the District Court, Kasargod in O.P.(Ele.)No.21 of 2005, whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.17,660/-. A perusal of paragraph 13 of the award would show that the affected area is 2.65 cents. The court below has relied on the decision of this Court reported in Kumba Amma v. KSEB(2000(1) KLT 542), whereby it has taken the annuity factor at 5%. The Apex Court in the decision reported in KSEB v. Livisha(2007(3) KLT 1) has held that each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of that case and had given 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 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 CRP14/2006 -:2:- 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 said decision, the matter requires reconsideration and for which additional particulars may be necessary. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for fresh consideration by permitting the parties to adduce both documentary and oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and dispose of the matter on the basis of the enunciated principles laid down in 2007(3) KLT 1(SC). Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 25.2.2008. C.R.P. is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-