IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 534 of 2006() ----------------------------- OP(ELE).198/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: IST RESPONDENT ----------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ SAMUEL JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, SHIBU BHAVAN, (MUTHUKUZHIYIL), KADIKA MURI, ENATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA, REP. BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JOSEPH, S/O.CHACKO, CHARIVUTHUNDIL VEEDU, KADIKA MURI, ENATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008, ALONG WITH CRP. NO.709/2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. Nos.534 & 709 OF 2006 ===================== Dated this the 1st day of January 2008 O R D E R C.R.P.No.534 of 2006 is preferred against the award in O.P.(Ele.) No.198 of 1999 of the Addl.District Court, Pathanamthitta, whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.24,115/-. The other C.R.P. is preferred against the award in O.P.(Ele.)285 of 1999 of the Addl.District Court, Pathanamthitta, whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.26,800/-. Learned counsel would contend that the court below has taken the annuity factor generally and has awarded the compensation. In the decision reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542), it has been held that the annuity factor has to be taken at a minimum of 5%. But the Apex Court in the decision reported in KSEB v. Livisha(2007(3) KLT 1(SC) held that each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of that case and had 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 CRPs 534 &709/2006 -:2:- 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”. In the light of the said principles, each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of that case and it appears that additional evidence is necessary to decide these cases. Therefore, I set aside the orders under challenge and the matter is remitted back to the court below for fresh consideration by permitting the parties to adduce both documentary and oral evidence in support of their contentions and dispose of the matter on the basis of the enunciated principles laid down in 2007(3) KLT 1(SC). Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 4.2.2008. C.R.Ps are disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-