IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 27 of 2008() ------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/10/2005 OF THE HONOURABLE ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA IN O.P.(ELE.) NO.228 OF 1996) REVISION PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, D/O.JANAKI AMMA, VADAKKE PEECHAMPALLIL, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- C.R.P.No.27 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha, whereby the court has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.26,328/- with 9% interest. A perusal of the award would reveal that the court below has relied upon the decision of this court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. reported in 2000(1) KLT 542. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has brought to my notice that a subsequent decision of the Apex court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha reported in 2007(3) KLT 1, whereby the court has held that each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex court has also 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 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 tress are concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case”. 2. So in the light of the above enunciated principles, the C.R.P.No.27/2008 2 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 District court for fresh disposal after permitting both parties to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Since the respondent has not entered appearance before the court, on appearance of the K.S.E.B, the court may give notice to the claimant's counsel who appeared before the court below. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 27.3.2008. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps