IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 563 of 2007() --------------------- OPELE.187/2001 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER; ------------------------ SHIBY GEORGE, ACHANICKAL (H), ARAKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.SABU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA 1465/07 IN CRP 563/07 DISMISSED 23.1.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 563 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Additional District Judge Thodupuzha in OP (Ele) 187/01 whereby the court below has awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,59,436/- with 9% interest. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Board has come up in revision. A perusal of the award at point No.4 would reveal that it has applied the factum laid down by this court in 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. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued before me that the Apex court in its 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. “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 C.R.P. NO.563/07 2 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. There are other points also raised by the revision petitioner, which also has to be considered. 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 both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and then decide the matter in the light of the enunciated principles referred to in the decision of the Apex court. Since the claimant has not appeared before this court, the court below is directed to give notice to the claimant and fix the date for taking evidence. The revision petitioner is directed to appear before the court below on 26.2.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.563/07 3