IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 859 of 2006() --------------------- OPELE.145/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA,KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------ RAJAN UNNITHAN, AGED 49 YEARS, KAILASOM HOUSE, THUVAYOOR NORTH,KARATHU VILLAGE, MANAKKALA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SRI.M.S.NISHAD SMT.SABINA JAYAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/02/2008 ALONG WITH C.R.P. NO. 860/06, 861/06 & 908/06, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. Nos. 859, 860, 861 & 908 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 14thday of February, 2008 ORDER These revision petitions are preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Pathanamthitta, in OP(Ele) Nos. 145/99, 146/99, 144/99, 142/99. The court below has awarded the compensation of Rs. 93,805/- in OP(Ele) No. 145/99, Rs. 2,15,527/- in OP(Ele) No.146/99, Rs. 22,861/- in OP(Ele) No.144/99 & Rs. 1,07,750/- in OP (Ele) No.142/99. 2. The court has relied upon the decision of this court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. [2000 (1) KLT 542] wherein the court has ordered to take uniform annuity of 5% for calculation of compensation. The learned counsel for the Power Grid Corporation has brought to my notice the decision of the Apex court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] wherein the Apex court held that there cannot be a uniform application and each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case and for that purpose it has given the following guidelines. C.R.P. Nos. 859, 860, 861 & 908 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.” 3. So in the light of these guidelines, it appears that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the court below. Therefore, the awards under challenge are set aside and the cases are remitted back to the District court for fresh consideration after allowing both sides to adduce both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and then decide the matter in the light of the enunciated principles referred to in the decision of the Apex court. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 17.3.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. Nos. 859, 860, 861 & 908 OF 2006 :2: M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. Nos. 859, 860, 861 & 908 OF 2006 :2: