IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 779 of 2007() --------------------- EAOP.39/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM,REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- C.J.JOSEPH,AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. OUSEPH, CHINGAMPARAMBIL (H) CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE, PERUNNA WEST MURI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 779 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of March, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Kottayam in E.A.O.P.39/03. The Court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.15,352/- for trees cut and Rs.8,000/- for diminution in land value. So far as the diminution in land value is concerned the Court has taken into consideration all the materials available, the length and breadth and thereafter found that the affected area is 20 cents, fixed a very reasonable valuation of Rs.2,000/- per cent, thereafter fixed the diminution in land value at 20% and gave a compensation of Rs.8,000/- and it can be never stated to be on the higher side. Therefore the said finding is confirmed. 2. So far as the enhanced value of the trees cut is concerned the Court below has purely relied upon the factum laid down in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542). The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had brought my attention to the latest decision of the Supreme CRP NO. 779 of 2007 -:2:- Court reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1) where the Court has held that each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case and also brought to my notice to 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.” 3. 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 the award under challenge is partly set aside so far it relates CRP NO. 779 of 2007 -:3:- to the enhancement of compensation for trees cut is concerned. The Court below is directed to permit the party to adduce evidence in support of that point in accordance with the principles laid down by the Apex Court and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 22.5.2008. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-