IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1135 of 2004() ---------------------- OP(ELE) NOS.52 & 53/1997 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, N.PARAVUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTIRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: -------------------------------- MUHAMMED IQBAL, S/O. ELAMANA HASSAN KHADER PILLA, PUTHUVASSERY KARA, CHENGAMANADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2008, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 98 OF 2005,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP NO. 1135 OF 2004 ORDER ON IA NO.2757 OF 2004 IN CRP NO. 1135 OF 2004 DISMISSED. 11.01.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NOs. 1135 OF 2004 & 98 OF 2005 --------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008 ORDER Both these civil revision petitions are preferred against the very same award in OP (Electricity) 53/97 passed by the Additional District Judge, North Paravur, whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.1,30,657/- with 6% interest. CRP No. 1135/04 is filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board and CRP No. 98/05 is filed by the claimant. Naturally the one challenging the quantum as high and the other contending that it is inadequate. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner in CRP 98/05 had pointed out two points besides the other things for special consideration. There was an earlier order granting an amount of Rs.6,750/- for the tower, which has been erected. When that matter was challenged in revision, the entire order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the court below. But it is found from the observation of the court below in para 18 that a sum of Rs.6,750/- was already awarded as per earlier order. Certainly this amount also has to be taken into consideration while arriving at a total figure. It is contended that the court below has taken the average age of trees standing in the property for arriving at that compensation. It may not be proper and for the reason that the age factor has to be taken C.R.P. Nos 1135/04 & 98/05 2 into consideration either individually or as a group wise itself and then the method have to be worked out for fixing the compensation. That also has to be done by the court. The KSEB would mainly contend that the compensation is calculated as per the principles laid down in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B [2000 (1) KLT 542] whereby the annuity factor is ordered to be taken as 5%. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has drawn my attention to the decision rendered in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] wherein the Apex court held that each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances involved therein. The Apex court had also given the guidelines which reads as follows: “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. Therefore, in every case the court has to consider the lie of the land, nature of the trees and other factors like buildings etc., and the court may also consider whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances more compensation has to be awarded or it has to be reduced. As it is C.R.P. Nos 1135/04 & 98/05 3 submitted that the building is just below the line, whether any extra compensation has to be granted for that or whether it will spoil the real utility value of residential house etc., are matters which requires total consideration. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration, after affording equal opportunities to both sides to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary, in support of their respective contentions and the matter be decided in the light of the enunciated principles laid down in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] and also on the points referred to by me in the opening paragraphs of the judgment. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 17.2.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. Nos 1135/04 & 98/05 4