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. 660 of 2004() ----------------------------- OP(EA).141/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: IST RESPONDENT. ------------------------------ POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NAGIARKULANAGRA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER. ------------------------ E.V.THOMAS, KALMMOOTTIL, PANAYIL MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008, ALONG WITH CRP. NO. 560/2005 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. No.660/2004,168 & 560/2005 280 & 397/2006, 655 & 676/2007 ===================== Dated this the 1st day of January 2008 O R D E R C.R.P.No.168 of 205 is preferred against the award in O.P.(EA) No.280 of 2002 of the Addl. District Court, Alappuzha, whereby the court has granted a compensation of Rs.22,474/-, i.e. Rs.19,800/- towards diminution in land value and Rs.2,674/- towards additional compensation for the trees cut. 2. C.R.P.No.560 of 2005 is filed against the award in O.P.(EA) No.293 of 2002 of the Addl.District Court, Alappuzha whereby an additional compensation of Rs.1,41,211/- has been granted, i.e. Rs.54,000/- towards diminution in land value and Rs.87,211/- for the value of improvements. 3. C.R.P.No.280 of 2006 is preferred against the order in O.P.(EA) No.412 of 2002 of the Addl.District Court, Alappuzha, whereby an additional compensation of Rs.51,066/- has been granted for value of improvements. 4. C.R.P.No.655 of 2007 is preferred against the award in O.P.(EA) CRPs 660/04 & con.cases -:2:- No.59 of 2000 of the Addl.District Court, Alappuzha, whereby the court has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.80,062/-, i.e. Rs.38,560/- for the additional value of the trees cut and Rs.41,502/- towards diminution in land value. 5. C.R.P.No.676 of 2007 is preferred against the award in O.P.(EA) No.351 of 2002 of the Addl.District Court, Alappuzha whereby an additional compensation of Rs.23,145/- has been granted, i.e. Rs.12,000/- towards diminution in land value and Rs.11,145/- towards the value of the trees cut. 6.C.R.P.No.660 of 2004 is preferred against the award in O.P.(EA) No.141/2002 of the Addl.District Court, Alappuzha whereby the court awarded an additional compensation of Rs.17,387/- i.e. Rs.8,387/- towards the trees curt and removed and Rs.9,000/- towards the diminution in land value. 7.C.R.P.No.397 of 2006 is preferred against the award in O.P(EA) No.415 of 2002 of the Addl.District Court, Alappuzha whereby an amount of Rs.46,021/- has been awarded as additional compensation. It is only towards the value of the trees cut and removed. 8. In all these cases, a perusal of the awards would reveal that the court below has relied on the decision of this Court in Kumba Amma v. CRPs 660/04 & con.cases -:3:- K.S.E.B(2000(1) KLT 542), where the annuity factor is taken as 5%. So far as the said factum is concerned, in the recent decision of the Apex Court reported in KSEB v. Livisha(2007(3) KLT 1(SC), it 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 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” 9. The question of diminution in land value also is a matter which has to be taken into consideration and for fixing the market value of the property also there cannot be any uniform standard and it depends upon the area where it situated. The diminution in land value may depend upon the loss of the actual utility of the land for which the line is drawn which also requires detailed consideration. I think the entire matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the court below in the light of the enunciated CRPs 660/04 & con.cases -:4:- principles laid down by the Apex Court in 2007 (3) KLT 1. Therefore the awards under challenge are set aside 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. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 11.2.2008. C.R.Ps. are disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-