IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 561 of 2005(G) --------------------- OPELE.187/2002 of ADDL.D.C. & ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENTS/PETITIONRES: -------------------------------------- 1. K.V. DANIEL, CHERUKAVIL HOUSE, ANJILIPARA MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE MAVELIKKARA TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND WIFE PRINSAMMA DANIEL, CHERUKAVIL HOUSE, ANJILIPARA MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. 2. PRINSAMMA DANIEL, CHERUKAVIL HOUSE, ANJILIPARA MURI KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, ALONG WITH CRP 964/06 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NOs. 561/05 & 964 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008. O R D E R CRP 561/05 is preferred against the order of the Addl. District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P.(Ele.)187/02 whereby the Court has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.1,29,177/-, i.e., 75,177.41 towards cutting and removing the trees and Rs.54,000/- for diminution in land value. 2. CRP 964/06 is preferred against the order of the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P.(E.A.)653/02 whereby an additional amount of Rs.21,848/- is awarded as additional compensation, i.e., Rs.5847.44 towards cutting and removing trees and Rs.16,000/- for diminution in land value. 3. A perusal of the award in the two cases would reveal that the Court below has relied upon the decision of this Court reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542) where the Court held that the annuity factor has to CRP NOs. 561/05 & 964/06 -:2:- be taken as 5%. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had brought before me a decision of the Apex Court reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1). In that decision the Apex Court held that each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of that case. The Apex Court also held that, “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.” 4. So, from the foregoing discussions it is very clear that the matter requires reconsideration in the two cases. CRP NOs. 561/05 & 964/06 -:3:- Therefore, the awards under challenge are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for fresh consideration in the light of the principles laid down in 2007 (3) KLT page 1 by permitting both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions both documentary and oral. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 22.2.2008. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-