IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 621 of 2007() --------------------- [AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 10.8.2006 IN OP (ELE) NO.148/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-I, MAVELIKARA) REVN. PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT ----------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------ SUDHA, PANAMUTTATHU VEEDU, CHINGOLI. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 621 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 27thday of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Mavelikara, in OP (Ele) 148/02 whereby the court has granted an additional compensation of Rs.18,505/- with 6% interest (i.e. Rs. 10,505/- for trees cut and Rs.8,000/- for diminution of the land value). 2. Learned counsel had drawn my attention to para 10 of the award whereby the court has relied upon the decision of this court 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. Learned counsel would submit that in the light of the Apex court decision in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] the Apex court 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 and other similar relevant factors in our opinion would be C.R.P. NO.621/07 2 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 in the light of the enunciated principles, it appears that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the court below. 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 both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and then decide the matter in the light of the enunciated principles referred to in the decision of the Apex court. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 29.3.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps