IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 591 of 2006() --------------------- OP(ELE)382/1996 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, K.S.E. BOARD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER IN E.OP: ------------------------------------------------------- K.J. MATHAI, S/O. OUSPEH, KARIPPARAKUDIYIL, PUNNOOPADY, MULAVUR,MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.ALIAS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALY HEARD ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 591 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 ORDER This civil revision petition is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge (Adhoc-II), Ernakulam, in OP (Ele)382/96 whereby the court below has awarded a total additional compensation of Rs.4,04,949.42 with 6% interest. It is against that decision, the present civil revision petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board has referred to para 6 of the award. KSEB filed a detailed valuation statement making the computation at the rate of 10% annuity. But the counsel for the claimant therein filed a calculation statement on the basis of the dictum laid down 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. It is on that basis the amount is arrived at. In K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] the Apex court 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 CRP NO.591/06 2 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.” 3. So from this it is to be held that the court has to consider each case on the facts and circumstances of that case and with the available materials and therefore the award passed by the court below requires interference. The Apex court has never held that 5% annuity factor cannot be taken but has only cautioned that it cannot be done as a uniform practice. 4. 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 oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 29.5.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps CRP NO.591/06 3