IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 179 of 2007 ---------------------------- OP(EA) NO. 268/2002 OF ADDL. DIST. JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA. ................................ REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ------------------------------------------- SOMAN PILLAI, PUTHENPURACKAL VEEDU, BHARANIKKAVU P.O., MAVELIKKARA. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2008 ALONG WITH C.R.P NOS. 180/2007 AND 814/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. Nos.179,180 & 814 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 17th day of January 2008 O R D E R C.R.P.No.179 of 2007 is preferred against the award of the Addl.District Court, Alappuzha in O.P.(EA)No.268 of 2002, whereby an amount of Rs.21,105/- is awarded as additional compensation. 2. C.R.P.No.180 of 2007 is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Court, Alappuzha in O.P.(EA)No.143 of 2002 whereby the court has awarded a compensation of Rs.29,315/-. 3. C.R.P.No.814 of 2007 is preferred against the award of the very same court in O.P.(EA)No.107/2002, whereby the court has awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,90,880/-. 4. It is against these decisions the Power Grid Corporation of India has filed these revisions. It is pointed out that all these cases are decided in the light of the principles laid down in Kumba Amma v. KSEB(2000(1) KLT 542), whereby the court has fixed the return at 5%. Learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn my attention to the decision of the Apex Court reported in KSEB v. Livisha(2007(3) KLT 1(SC), wherein it is held that CRPs 179/2007 & con.cases -:2:- each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of that case and had 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 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”. 5.In the light of the said decision, the matters require reconsideration. Therefore the awards under challenge are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the court below for fresh consideration by permitting the parties to adduce both documentary and oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and dispose of the matter on the basis of the enunciated principles laid down in 2007(3) KLT 1(SC). 6. In C.R.P.No.814 of 2007 the amount awarded is Rs.2,90,880/- and no amount is deposited so far. Therefore, I direct in that case to deposit 25% of the amount awarded and the petitioners will be at liberty to withdraw the same. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on CRPs 179/2007 & con.cases -:3:- 26.2.2008. C.R.Ps are disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-