IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 633 of 2007() --------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP (Ele) 87 of 1999 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, KASARGOD) REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS. ------------------------- 1. SRI.PUTHIYEDATH CHANDRAN, S/O.KAMMARAN GURUKKAL. 2. SRI.PUTHIYEDATH JANARDHANAN, S/O.KAMMARAN GURUKKAL. 3. SRI.PUTHIYEDATH MOHANAN, S/O.KAMMARAN GURUKKAL. 4. PUTHIYEDATH RATNAKARAN, S/O.KAMMARAN GURUKKAL. 5. PUTHIYEDATH NARAYANAN, S/O.KAMMARAN GURUKKAL. (ALL ARE RESIDING AT PERINJA HOUSE, P.O.CHAYOTH, KINANNUR VILLAGE, KAKKOL DESOM, NILESWAR). THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN IA 1712/07 IN CRP 633/07 DISMISSED 7.1.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 633 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the award of the District Judge, Kasargod, whereby the court has granted an additional compensation of Rs.3,41,400/-. The court has enhanced the compensation both for the value of improvements as well as for diminution of land value. 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. In K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] the Apex court has 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 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 CRP NO.633/07 2 bearing trees are concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” 2. So in the light of these guidelines, 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 District court 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. Since the respondents have not chosen to enter appearance in spite of notice, if they are not available on the date of appearance, which I fix, the KSEB may take notice to them for the purpose of hearing them on remand. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 18.2.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps CRP NO.633/07 3