IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1222 of 2004() ---------------------- OPEL.190/2000 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHYUDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SADASIVAN NAIR SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- SILVY ANTONY, PUNNATHANATHU HOUSE, MUNIYARA P.O., KONNATHADY VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.SUDHEESH.A. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.3050 OF 2004 IN C.R.P. NO.1222 OF 2004 DISMISSED 7/1/08 SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. [ True Copy ] P.A. TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 1222 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Thodupuzha in O.P.(Ele.)190/00 whereby the Court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.1,35,583/- with 9% interest. A perusal of the grounds of revision would reveal that the Electricity Board is aggrieved by the application of the dictum laid down in Kumba Amma's case, i.e., Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542). It is true that in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1) the Apex Court has held that each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case and had also laid down the guidelines 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 CRP NO. 1222 of 2004 -:2:- 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, it is very clear from the above decision that there cannot be a uniform application of 5% annuity factor in all the cases but it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Court below. 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 produce documentary evidence and adduce oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. The Court below shall decide the matter afresh CRP NO. 1222 of 2004 -:3:- as an open remand and decide the issue. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 21.2.08. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-