IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 2959 of 2001(F) ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2000 IN ELE. IN OP.339/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------ K.S.E.BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KSE BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------- A.P.ABOOTTY, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.MAMMU, ANAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PO: MAYYIL. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP NO.2959/2001 ORDER ON I.A. NO.395/2004 IN C.R.P. NO.2959/2001. DISMISSED Sd/- 10/3/08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JP M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 2959 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the 1st Addl. District Judge, Thalassery in O.P.(Ele.)339/99 whereby the Court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.1,45,294/-. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits before me that in paragraph 9 of the award the Court below has relied upon the decision of this Court reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542) whereby the annuity factor is taken as 5%. He would further submit before me that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1) each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case and a uniform percentage cannot be taken. He had also brought my notice to the following paragraph of the said judgment. C.R.P. NO. 2959 OF 2001 -:2:- “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.” 2. So, in the light of the above said enunciated principles of the Apex Court the matter requires reconsideration. Therefore I set aside the award of the Court below and remit the case back to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording equal opportunities to both parties to adduce documentary as well C.R.P. NO. 2959 OF 2001 -:3:- as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 10.4.2008. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- C.R.P. NO. 2959 OF 2001 -:4:- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. No.2959 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = O R D E R 10th March, 2008.