IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 269 of 2007() --------------------- OP(E.A.)500/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT.,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ----------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------ SARASAMMA, D/O. KUTTIYAMMA, PATTARAYATHU HOUSE, MEKKUM MURI, THAMARAKULAM VILLAGE. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 269 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha, in O.P. (E.A.) 500/2002 whereby the court has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.31,920/- with 7.5% interest. A perusal of the award would reveal that the court has relied upon the decision of this court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. [2000 (1) KLT 542] wherein this court has directed to take uniform annuity of 5% for calculation of compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the decision reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] wherein the Apex court has held that each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case and for that purpose the Apex court 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 C.R.P. NO.269/07 2 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 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 trial court for fresh consideration, after allowing both sides to adduce both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions, and to decide the matter in the light of the enunciated principles referred to in the decision of the Apex court. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 26.2.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.269/07 2 C.R.P. NO.269/07 2