IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 1441 of 2004() ---------------------- OP.473/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHY BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ASOK.M.CHERIAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- V.V.CHERIYA, D/O.NANGA AMSOM, PERINGOM AMSOM, PERUNTHATTA DESOM, THALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.1441 of 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is referred against the order of the Additional District Judge, Thalassery in O.P.No.473/99 whereby the said court has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,49,796/-. 2. On a perusal of the award, it would show that in paragraph 9, the court below has applied the principles laid down by a Full Bench decision of this court in Kumba Amma vs. K.S.E.B.( 2000(1) KLT 542) wherein the Court has taken annuity return of 5%. By a later decision of the Apex Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha ( 2007(3) KLT 1 (SC) , the Apex Court has held that each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of that case and for that purpose the following principles are to be followed. “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 CRP1441/2004 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. In the light of the above enunciated principles the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the court below and therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for fresh consideration after affording equal opportunity to both sides to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their contentions and dispose of the matter in accordance with law as laid down by the court. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 8.4.2008. If the claimant's legal representatives are not available on that day, the Kerala State Electricity Board be directed to take steps to amend the petition and issue notice to others. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl