IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 CRP.No. 821 of 2006() --------------------------- OPELE.200/2001 of ADL.D.C. & MACT,THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT IN O.P. ---------------------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN O.P. --------------------------------------------- CHINNA W/O.PAPPAN, PERIYATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARAKULAM KARA, ARAKULAMVILLAGE. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC., K.S.E.B. SRI.JOSEPH PUNNOOSE THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs M.N. KRISHNAN,J. ........................................... C.R.P.NO.821 OF 2006 ............................................. Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha in OP(Ele) NO.200/2001. By the final award, the respondent is permitted to realise an amount of `30,258/= with interest. The main dispute is with respect to Point No.4 in the award. The KSEB has taken the rate of return as 10% for determining the compensation. The trial court on the basis of the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Kumba Amma v. KSEB (2000 (1) KLT 542) held that it has to be 5% and not 10%. But that view has undergone a change by the pronouncement of a decision of the Supreme Court in KSEB. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: 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 a re concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case”. : 2 : C.R.P.NO.821 OF 2006 Therefore the Supreme Court did not agree with the uniform formula to be applied by the Land Acquisition Officer or the reference court for determining the compensation though it may be easier. 2. Since the matter has been considered in the light of Kumba Amma's decision, in the light of later view of the Supreme Court, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the trial court especially for the reason that it requires additional particulars for a proper consideration. 3. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court with a direction to permit both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions and then decide the matter in accordance with the principles enunciated in Livisha's case. Parties are directed to appear before the lower court on 08.03.2011. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 3 : C.R.P.NO.821 OF 2006 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A/A.S/C.R.P.NO.OF ............................................. 17th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T/O R D E R