IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 357 of 2007 -------------------------- OP(ELE) 165/1995 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD ................................. REVN. PETITIONER: 2ND RESPONDENT. -------------------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI,SC FOR POWER GRID C RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER. ----------------------------------------- CHACKO, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT VADAKKUMPARAMBIL, KODUVALPARA DESOM, POTHUNDI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.M.N.SAJEER THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. No.357 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 29th day of January 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the I Addl.District Judge, Palakkad in O.P.(Ele.)165 of 1995, whereby the court below has granted an additional compensation of Rs.1,572/-. Or, in other words, from the fixation of Rs.55,000/-, it was enhanced to Rs.56,572/-. The revision petitioner had argued that in the decision reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B(2000(1) KLT 542), the court below has fixed 5% return is no longer to be followed in toto for the reason that the Apex Court in the decision reported in KSEB v. Livisha(2007(3)KLT 1(SC) has held that each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of that case and had given the guidelines for which compensation is to be calculated. Here, the additional compensation awarded is Rs.1,572/-. The court below has taken into consideration the age of the trees, yield, the present value and had independently assessed the same and awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,572/-. This will show that the court below had applied its mind properly in fixing the compensation. CRP 357/2007 -:2:- Therefore, there is no merit in this revision petition. Hence it is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-