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. 624 of 2007() --------------------- OPELE.300/2002 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: IST RESPONDENT -------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIAKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ----------------------- SRI.SREEDHARAN.K., S/O.LATE KOCHURAMAN, RAJASREE BHAVAN, KOIPALLIKARANMA MURI, PERINGALA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI. SREEDHARAN K. 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. 624 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 ORDER This civil revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Alappuzha, in OP(Ele) 300/02 whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.22,695/-, i.e. Rs.10,695/- towards enhancement of trees cut and Rs.12,000/- for diminution of land value. 2. It is seen from the award itself that the court has relied upon the decision of this court in 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. It is also seen that the court below has found the affected area as 8 cents and fixed the percentage of diminution of land value at 30% and further awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per cent. This is a matter which requires reconsideration at the hands of the court below for the reason that so many factors have to be taken into consideration before deciding the same. The Apex court in the decision reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] 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.624/07 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 after allowing both sides to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and then decide the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 22.5.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.624/07 3