IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 1072 of 2006(G) ----------------------------------- O.P (ELE).NO.29/1999 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ 1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.). RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------- SREEDHARAN UNNITHAN (DIED) 1. SARALA DEVI, W/O. LATE SREEDHARAN UNNITHAN, THIRUMANGALATHU HOUSE, VAYALA MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THARA S.UNNITHAN, D/O.LATE SREEDHARAN UNNITHAN, -DO- -DO- 3. DHANYA S.UNNITHAN, D/O.LATE SREEDHARAN UNNITHAN, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 1781/2007 IN C.R.P. NO. 1072/2006-G DISMISSED 13/02/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 1072 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Pathanamthitaa in O.P.(Ele.)29/99 whereby the District Judge has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.37,200/-. Heard counsel for both sides. From the award it is seen that there were 30 yielding rubber trees that had been cut and removed. The respondent has taken into consideration 10% as annual net return and the Court by applying the dictum in Kumba Amma's case made it at 5% and calculated the compensation. Similarly, it is stated that the other aspects has also not been properly considered and enhanced compensation has been granted. It is submitted that the dictum laid down in Kumba Amma's case cannot have uniform application in the light of the view expressed by the Apex Court in the decision reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1). It was held in that decision that each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of that case. The Apex Court has also given the following guidelines. CRP NO. 1072 of 2006 -:2:- “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.” 2. So, in the light of the above said enunciated principles laid down by 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 17.3.2008. CRP NO. 1072 of 2006 -:3:- 3. Since 50% of the amount is deposited in the Court below I direct the Court below to put it in fixed deposit so as to get interest for the person who ultimately is entitled to the benefit. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-