IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 150 of 2007() --------------------- OPEA.29/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ---------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- MOHAN JAMES CHACKO, S/O.CHACKO, MULACKAL JAMES VILLA, THALAVADY VILLAGE, NEERATTUPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP 150/2007 ORDER ON IA NO.430/2007 IN CRP NO.150/2007 DISMISSED 10.3.2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.150 of 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P.(E.A.) No.29/2003 whereby the court below has awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.88,010/- with 6% interest. The court has enhanced the compensation both for the value of improvements as well as for diminution of land value. That is Rs.52,010/- towards value of trees and Rs.36,000/- towards diminution of land value. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has brought to my notice that the court below 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. In K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] 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 CRP 150/2007 2 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 these guidelines, it appears that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the court below. Therefore, I set aside the award passed by the court below and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration after affording equal opportunities to both sides to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then decide the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 11.4.2008. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE lcs