IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 189 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/01/2006 ON OPELE.542/2002 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT. ----------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS. ------------------------- 1. KARTHIKEYAN, SHAJI BHAVAN, ERIKAVU P.O. 2. LEKSHMI, OF -DO-. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2008, ALONG WITH CRP.271/07,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. Nos. 189 & 271 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 ORDER C.R.P. NO. 189/07 is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Alappuzha in OP (Electricity) 542/02 whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.61,510/- with 9% interest. C.R.P. NO. 271/07 is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Alappuzha in OP (Ele) 224/02 whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.18,375/- 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the court below 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. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has brought to my notice that in the light of the decision of the Apex court 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 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 C.R.P. Nos. 189 & 271/07 2 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.” 3. So, in the light of the enunciated principles, 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 court below for fresh consideration after allowing both sides to adduce both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in the light of the enunciated principles referred to in the decision of the Apex court. I make it clear that this case has to be independently considered and the enhancement of reduction will depend upon the independent consideration. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 3.3.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. Nos. 189 & 271/07 3