IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 1000 of 2007() ---------------------- OPELE.191/2001 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------- THE CHIEF MANAGER, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------------------ M.C. NOUSHAD, S/O. KASSIM MUCKADAN, RESIDING AT MUCKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARINGARA VILLAGE, CHATHANKARI MURI, TIRUVALLA TALUK. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1000 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(Ele) 191/01 whereby the court below has awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs. 50,094/- with 6% interest. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner brings to my notice that the court has relied upon the principles laid down by 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 argued before me that the Apex court in its decision reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] 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. NO.1000/07 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 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 allowing both sides to adduce both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and then decide the matter in the light of the enunciated principles referred to in the decision of the Apex court. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 26.2.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.1000/07 3