IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 1123 of 2001() -------------------------------- OP.202/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE K.S.E.BOARD, REP.BY SECRETARY, VAIDHUTHIBHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SC FOR K.S.E.B. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS IN OP. ----------------------- C.P.PURUSHOTHAMAN, KALLADATH HOUSE, P.O.MUZHAPPALA, KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1123 OF 2001 --------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, Thalassery in O.P.202/99 whereby the court below has awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs. 11,804/- with 8% interest. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner brings to my notice that the court has relied upon the principles laid down by 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. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued before me that the Apex court in its decision reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] 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 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.” C.R.P. No. 1123/01 2 3. A perusal of the award passed by the court below would reveal that large number of fruit bearing trees were cut and removed. The age and utility of the fruit bearing trees, as assessed by the electricity board, has been accepted by the court below as well. So by applying the principles in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] it has to be held that the court below has considered the facts and circumstances of that case for arriving at a decision and it cannot be held that it is an arbitrary exercise of power by the court below. So far as diminution of the land value is concerned, the claimants raised a plea of Rs.20,000/- per cent and the Commissioner fixed the value of property between Rs.8,000 and Rs.10,000/-. The court below found that neither the petitioner nor the Commissioner have considered the same in the correct perspective and therefore the court arrived at a decision fixing the value of the property at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per cent. The court has only taken diminution of the land value at 20%, which also appears to be highly reasonable. So it is an award in which the court below has taken all the factual matrix for consideration in the correct perspective and have arrived at a decision, which does not call for any interference. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. No. 1123/01 3