IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 964 of 2007() --------------------- OPELE.128/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT- I,MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER /PETITIONER: ----------------------------- DINAKARAN, SREEBHAVAN, CHINGOLI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENT: ------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, KAYAMKULAM TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- C.R.P.No.964 OF 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ Heard. This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, Mavelikara in O.P.(Ele) No.128/2002 whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 30,723/- with 6% interest. The principal objection is with respect to the diminution of land value. Paragraph 13 of the award would reveal that 10 yielding coconut trees, 11 non-yielding coconut trees, 29 coconut saplings have been cut and removed. The court below found that 35 cents of the land has been affected, fixed market value of the land at Rs.5,000/-, found that the diminution of the land value is 15% and awarded a compensation of Rs. 26,250/- for diminution of land value. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that 43 cents have been effected and the market value taken per cent is absolutely inadequate and the diminution percent calculated is very low and therefore the matter requires reconsideration. C.R.P.No.964/2007 2 2. As observed by the decision of the Apex court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha reported in 2007 (3) KLT 1, the situs of the land, the affected area of the land, the factum whether the line goes through the middle of the property etc. are all matters which the court has to consider in each and every case before awarding a compensation. 3. Since those materials have not been taken into account, I set aside the award passed by the Additional District Judge and remitted back the case to the court below with a direction to permit the revision petitioner herein to produce both documentary and oral evidence and permission is also granted to the respondent, Power Grid Corporation to let in counter evidence and then decide the matter, in accordance with law, in the light of the enunciated principles laid down by the Apex court. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 26.3.2008. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps