IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 474 of 2007() --------------------- OPEA.199/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVISION PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------ K.G.JOSHUA, AGED 59, KOMARACHAN VEEDU, BHARANICKAVU MURI, KATTANAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 474 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the 1st Addl. District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P.(E.A.)199/02 whereby the Court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.35,200/- with 6% interest. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits before me that the Court below has applied the uniform annuity factor of 5% as per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542). He would further submit before me that in fixing the compensation the facts and circumstances of each case has to be strictly considered as laid down by the Apex Court reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1) whereby the Apex Court has laid down 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 C.R.P. 474 OF 2007 -:2:- 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 the above said enunciated principles of the Apex Court the matter requires reconsideration because each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case. Therefore I set aside the award of the Court below and remit the case back to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording equal opportunities to both parties to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their C.R.P. 474 OF 2007 -:3:- respective contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 29.2.2008. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-