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. 937 of 2006() --------------------- OPELE.257/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP.BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- LAILA, PUTHEN VEETIL (ANJILIMOOTTI), ERIKKAVU, KARTHIKAPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 937 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Mavelikkara in O.P.(Ele.)257/02 whereby the Court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.27,858/- i.e., Rs.18,858/- towards the compensation for trees cut and removed and Rs.9,000/- for diminution in land value. It is seen from paragraph 10 of the award 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) whereby 5% is taken as the annuity factor to calculate the compensation. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has brought to my notice to the decision reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1) where the Apex Court has held that each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case and had also laid down the guidelines which is extracted as follows. CRP 937 OF 2006 -:2:- “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.” 2. In the light of the above guidelines given by the Apex Court the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Court below and for the said purpose the award is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for fresh consideration after affording equal opportunities to both the petitioner and respondent to adduce both oral and CRP 937 OF 2006 -:3:- documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 22.2.08. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-