IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 464 of 2007() --------------------- OP(ELE)30/1995 of DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI .................... REVISION PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, WORLD BANK PROJECT, CIRCLE NO.1, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THRISSUR-4. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------ SRI.ILLIYAN CHERIYA MUHAMMED, S/O.MOOSSAKUTTY, SHEREEFA MANZIL, VILAYIL AMSOM DESOM, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 464 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the District Judge, Manjeri in O.P.(Ele.)30/95 whereby the Court below has awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,93,860/- with 6% interest. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that the Court below has applied the principles laid down in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542) whereby this Court directed to take a uniform annuity of 5%. He would further submit before me that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court reported 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 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 middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion would be determinative. CRP NO. 464 of 2007 -:2:- 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 enunciated principles of the Apex Court the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Court below. Therefore 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 10.3.2008. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-