IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 904 of 2007() --------------------- OPELE.117/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ---------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. MATHAN PHILIP(DIED). JOHN PHILIPOSE, VALIYAVILA VEEDU, NALLIMUKAL P.O., PERINGANADU VILLAGE. 2. BABU.B.P., VALIYAVILA VEEDU, NALLIMUKAL P.O., PERINGANADU VILLAGE. 3. SOPHY BENNY, PUTHENVEETTIL, KUMBANKULANGARA, THUVAYOOR SOUTH. 4. LISSY JOHN, THOTTAKKADU VEEDU, KEERUKUZHY P.O., PANTHALAM. 5. MONACHAN.B.P., VALIYAVILA VEEDU, NALLIMUKAL P.O., PERINGANADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.904 of 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(Ele) No.117/99 whereby the court has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.83,823/- with 6% interest. Further perusal of award would show that the court below has fixed the annuity factor of 5% relying upon the decision of this court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. [2000 (1) KLT 542]. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has brought to my notice that the decision of the Apex Court reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] whereby the Apex court has held that each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case and for that purpose it 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 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 CRP 904/2007 2 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 these guidelines, it appears that 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 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 7.4.2008. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl