IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 CRP.No. 1066 of 2007() ---------------------------- OP(ELE)39/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): IST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------ 1. SRI.KRISHNAN NAIR (DIED), ELAMTHOTTATHU HOUSE, MUTTOM MURI, CHEPPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SMT.VIJAYALEKSHMI, ELAMTHOTTATHU HOUSE, VALIYAKUZHY MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. PRAMOD KUMAR, ELAMTHOTTATHU HOUSE, VALIYAKUZHY MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. SMT.SREEPRIYA, ELAMTHOTTATHU HOUSE, VALIYAKUZHY MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 5. SMT.ARUNA, ELAMTHOTTATHU HOUSE, VALIYAKUZHY MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. R2-5 BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITH KUMAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 1066 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Additional District Judge, Mavelikkara in OP(Ele)39/02. The brief facts would reveal that for the purpose of drawing Kayamkulam-Edamon 220 KV electric line property had been taken by the Power Grid Corporation and compensation is claimed on different heads for the same. The principal point in these cases are decided on the basis of a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. 2000 (1) KLT 542). In the said decision this Court held that 5% annuity be taken instead of 10% annuity. It is on the basis of the same the cases had been disposed of. CRP NO. 1066 of 2007 -:2:- 2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha and others reported in 2007 (3) KLT 1 had held that “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 tract of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors 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 is concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” CRP NO. 1066 of 2007 -:3:- 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned that there cannot be a uniform practice and in doing the same various factors had to be taken into consideration which are relevant for the determination of the matter. The Court also stated that it may be easier for the acquisition officer or the reference Court to have a uniform methodology but it is not proper and therefore had given guidelines for the determination of the compensation. Since the decision mainly relied upon is the Full Bench decision of this Court and as there is a variation of the principles laid down therein by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the matter requires reconsideration and for that additional documents and evidence also may be necessary for the disposal of the case. Therefore I set aside the award under challenge and direct the Court CRP NO. 1066 of 2007 -:4:- below to consider the whole matter in the light of the decision reported in 2007 (3) KLT 1 after affording equal opportunity to both the sides to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 24.2.2011. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-