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. 316 of 2007() --------------------- OPELE.294/2002 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS ----------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. KOCHUPENNU, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.LATE KUNJUCHERUKKAN, ANACHERINJA PARAMBIL HOUSE, KADAPRA VILLAGE, NIRANAM P.O., THIRUVALLA. 2. RAJAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUNJU CHERUKKAN OF .DO. .DO 3. UTHAMAN, AGED 44 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 4. SATHYAN, AGED 35 YEARS, -DO- -DO- THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.316 of 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the award passed by the Additional District Judge, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(Elec) No.294/2002 whereby the court below has awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.54,311/- with 6% interest. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 served and notice to the fourth respondent returned unclaimed. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has brought to my notice that the court below has relied upon the decision of this court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. [2000 (1) KLT 542] whereby the court below has ordered to take uniform annuity of 5% for calculation of compensation. He has argued that in the light of the decision 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 would contend that the uniform annuity factor of 5% cannot be taken in all cases. He had submitted before me the relevant paragraph of that decision. CRP316/2007 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.” 4. 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 court below for fresh consideration after permitting both sides to adduce both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 11.4.2008. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl