IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 190 of 2007() --------------------- OPELE.16/2003 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER --------------------------------- 1. RAVI, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. KUNJAPPAN, KANATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, THALAVADY, SOUTH MURI, THALAVADY VILLAGE. 2. SOBHANA, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O. RAVI, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2008, ALONG WITH CRP.622/06 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- CRP.Nos.527/2006, 622/2006 & 190/2007, 289/2007, ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 ORDER C.R.P.No.289/07 is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(Ele.)No.293/02 whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.92,031/- with 6% interest. A perusal of the award would reveal that the court below has relied upon the dictum laid down in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. [2000 (1) KLT 542] as seen from paragraph 9 of the award. The court below took a uniform return of 5% in the light of the decision referred to above. So far as the land is concerned, the court held that total extent effected is 16.951 cents out of which 2.742 cents is covered by a tower. The court fixed the value of the property at Rs.25,000/- by taking 50% as the diminution of the land value and awarded compensation of Rs.34,275/- for 2.742 cents and the diminution of the land value for the other extent effected at 10% and awarded a compensation of Rs.35,522.5 2. C.R.P.No.527/2006 is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge in O.P.(Ele.)No.190/01 whereby the CRP 527/2006 & conn. 2 court below has awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,38,165/-. A perusal of the award would reveal that the court below has relied upon the dictum laid down in Kumbhamma’s case in paragraph 7 of the award and other paragraphs would reveal that how the court arrived at the figure regarding the diminution of the land value which comes to above Rs.1,62,649/-. 3. In O.P.(Ele.)No.16/03 against which C.R.P.No.190/07 is filed, the court below has awarded a compensation of Rs.50,876/- with 6% interest, that is awarding Rs.15,966/- for enhancement of value of trees cut and Rs.34,910/- for diminution of land value applying the dictum in Kumbamma's case. 4. In O.P. (Ele.) No.247/99 against which C.R.P.No. 622/06 is filed the court below has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,32,620/-. It is submitted that there is some calculation mistake as well and further the court has followed the dictum laid down in Kumbhamma's case. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit before me that the court below has uniformly applied the dictum laid down in Kumbhamma’s case which in the light of the latest decision of the Apex court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] is incorrect. The Apex court held that each case has to be decided on the facts and CRP 527/2006 & conn. 3 circumstances of the case and given the guidelines to be followed in such cases which are extracted 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.” So in the light of the enunciated principles, the matter requires a complete reconsideration by the court below and therefore, the awards under challenge are set aside and the cases are remitted back to the court below for fresh consideration by permitting both sides to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and decide the matter in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 10.4.2008. The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl