IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 624 of 2006 ---------------------------- OP(ELE.) 237/2002 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA ................................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ BHANUMATHY, PUTHAZHITHARAYIL, MAHADEVIKADU, KARTHIKAPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. No.624 OF 2006 ===================== Dated this the 8th day of January 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl.Distirct Court-I, Mavelikkara in O.P.(Ele.)No.237 of 2002, whereby the court has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.11,444/- for additional value of the trees curt and also for diminution of land value. The court below has placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in Kumba Amma v. KSEB(2000(1) KLT 542) whereby the annuity factor is fixed at 5%. In the decision reported in KSEB v. Livisha(2007(3) KLT 1 (SC), the Apex Court held that each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of that case and had 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 relevant factor. 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 CRP 624/2006 -:2:- relation to fruit bearing trees are concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case”. 2. In the light of the said decision, the matter requires reconsideration and for which additional particulars may be necessary. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for fresh consideration by permitting the parties to adduce both documentary and oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and dispose of the matter on the basis of the enunciated principles laid down in 2007(3) KLT 1(SC). Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 22.2.2008. C.R.P. is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-