IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 622 of 2007() --------------------- OPEA.309/2002 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------------------ SRI. UNNOONNI E., PONNALAYAM HOUSE, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM, PERUNGALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA. BY ADV SRI. UNNOONNI.E THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 622 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 ORDER This civil revision petition is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha, in OP(EA) 309/02 whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 1,00,675/- for the value of yielding trees cut and Rs. 14,400/- towards diminution of land value. So far as diminution of land value is concerned, the court has applied the principles properly and had only taken 30% as diminution of land value. The court found 12 cents of land as affected area and had granted the compensation. I do not find any ground to interfere with the said decision. 2. So far as the enhancement towards trees are concerned, the court has fixed the compensation on the basis of 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 the decision reported 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. C.R.P. NO.622/07 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 award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for fresh consideration of enhancement regarding the value of improvements after allowing both sides to adduce 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 23.5.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.622/07 3