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. 840 of 2001() --------------------- OP(MV) 152/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVISION PETITIONER:RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SC FOR K.S.E.B. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT:PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------ C.K.SAROJINI AMMA, W/O.P.K. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, MAYYIL AMSOM, CHERUPAZHASSI DESOM. (REP. THROUGH P.A.HOLDER, P.K. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.MAYYIL AMSOM, CHERUPAZHASSI) BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.2109/2003 IN C.R.P.NO.840/2001 DISMISSED 9/01/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 840 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of January, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Thalassery in O.P.152/99 whereby the Addl. District Judge has awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,30,875/-. 2. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits before me that the compensation has been decided following the dictum laid down in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542). But in the light of the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1) each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case. The Apex Court has 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 CRP NO. 840 of 2001 -:2:- 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 principles it has to be held that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Court below and therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for fresh consideration after permitting both sides to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions, both documentary and oral and thereafter to dispose of the matter CRP NO. 840 of 2001 -:3:- in the light of the principles stated in the above referred decision. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 23.2.2008. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- CRP NO. 840 of 2001 -:4:- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. No. 840 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = O R D E R 9th January, 2008.