IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 451 of 2007() --------------------- OP(ELE)64/1996 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------ POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------- KURIAN, S/O.MATHAI, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT THIDUTHIDUPPIL VEETTIL, VADAKKENCHERY DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 451 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the 1st Addl. District Judge, Palakkad in O.P.(Ele.)64/96 whereby the Court below has awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,17,323/- with 6% interest. Respondent served. There is no appearance for him before this Court. The learned counsel had brought to my notice that the Court below has followed a dictum laid down in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542) whereby this Court held that a uniform percentage of 5% has to be taken. The learned counsel would submit that in the light of the decision reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1) each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of that case. The Apex Court has also laid down 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 CRP NO. 451 of 2007 -:2:- 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.” 2. So, in the light of the above said decision one cannot take a uniform percentage and it is to be decided on the facts and circumstances of every case. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration in that angle. Hence I set aside the award of the Court below and remit the case back to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording equal opportunities to both parties to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 24.3.2008. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-