IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 425 of 2005(H) ---------------------- OPEA.272/2002 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT -------------------------------- POWER GRIND CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------ SARALA, W/O.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI S., UTHRADOM, KOILPALLKARAMMA MURI, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM FROM SREEMANDIRAM, KOILPALLIKARAMA MURI, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 425 OF 2005 --------------------- Dated this the 21stday of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha, in OP (EA) 272/02 whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.24,894/- i.e. Rs.10,800 for diminution of land value and additional compensation of Rs.14,094/- towards value of the trees cut. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has brought to my notice that the court below has applied the principles laid down 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. According to him, in the light of the Apex court 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 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 C.R.P. No. 425/05 2 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.” 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 accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 24.3.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. No. 425/05 3