IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 1009 of 2007() --------------------------------- OP(ELE).233/2004 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: ------------------------ DEVASSYA THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSYA, PUNNAMOOTTIL VEETTIL, CHUNANGAD DESOM, AMBALAPPARA VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.CHANDRASEKHARAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2008, ALONG WITH CRP.1028/2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NOs. 1009, 1028, 1032, 1033 & 1041 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008. O R D E R In O.P.(Ele.)239/04 the Court below has awarded a compensation of Rs.38,220/-, in O.P.(Ele.)233/04 the Court below has awarded a compensation of Rs.32,443/-, in O.P. (Ele.)242/04 the Court below has awarded a compensation of Rs.70,191/-, in O.P.(Ele) 245/04, the Court below has awarded a compensation of Rs.39,515 and in O.P.(Ele.)9/05 Rs.96,099/- is awarded as compensation. CRP 1009/07 is preferred against O.P.(Ele.)233/04, CRP 1028/07 is preferred against O.P.(Ele.)245/04, CRP 1032/07 is preferred against O.P.(Ele.)242/04, CRP 1033/07 is preferred against O.P.(Ele.) 9/05 and CRP 1041/07 is preferred against O.P.(Ele.)239/04. In all these cases the learned District Judge has followed the dictum laid down by this Court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542) whereby this Court has directed to fix the annuity factor at 5% uniformly. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has cited before me the decision of the CRP NOs. 1009, 1028, 1032, 1033 & 1041 of 2007 -:2:- Apex Court reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1). The Apex Court held that each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case. The Apex Court has also 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.” 2. In the light of the above said enunciated principles each case has to be considered on the facts and CRP NOs. 1009, 1028, 1032, 1033 & 1041 of 2007 -:3:- circumstances of that case. As the matter has to be considered afresh I permit the respondent in the revision petition to point out any mistake committed by the Court below in approaching the subject matter and I permit both the parties to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and thereafter direct the Court below to dispose of the matter in accordance with law as laid down in 2007 (3) KLT page 1. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 26.2.2008. The C.R.Ps. are disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-