IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 55 of 2007() -------------------- OPELE.87/2004 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: --------------------------------- SRI. SAJIKUMAR K.R., KARAKUNNEL, CHEMBALAMKARA, PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.K.MURALEEDHARA KAIMAL THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 55 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of January, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Thodupuzha dated 29.7.06 whereby the learned Munsiff had awarded an additional compensation of Rs.1,83,039/-. Respondent had been served in the delay condonation application and they are represented. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits before me that the annuity factor as stated in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542) has been taken as 5% and in the light of the decision in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1) each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case. The Apex Court has given the guidelines 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 CRP NO. 55 of 2007 -:2:- 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 said decision 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 trial court for fresh consideration after affording equal opportunities to both the sides to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and dispose it of in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 23.2.2008. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-