IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 148 of 2007() --------------------- O.P.No.(E.A.)NO.621/02 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. REVN. PETITIONER: IST RESPONDENT -------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS --------------------------------- P.M.KOYAKUNJU (DIED) 1. FASIYA BEEVI, D/O.KOYAKUNJU, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, CHINGOLI P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY. 2. SHAHIDA BEEVI, D/O.KOYAKUNJU, DO. DO. 3. SHANIDA BEEVI, D/O.KOYAKUNJU, DO. DO. 4. HASHIM RAWTHER, S/O.KOYAKUNJU, DO. DO. 5. THAHA, S/O.KOYAKUNJU, DO. DO. 6. P.K.SHEENA, D/O.KOYAKUNJU, DO. DO. 7. NISHAD, S/O.KOYAKUNJU, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.DILIP ADV.SHRI S.KABEER & ADV.SHRI SAJU N.A. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 148 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008 ORDER The respondents are served on the delay condonation application and they have not entered appearance. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. 2. This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P.(E.A.) 621/02 whereby the Additional District Judge has awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,45,250/- with 9% interest. A perusal of Para.7 of the award would reveal that the court has taken into consideration the decision of this court reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B [2000 (1) KLT 542] whereby the annuity factor is ordered to be taken as 5%. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has drawn my attention to the decision rendered in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] wherein this court held that each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances involved therein. The Apex has given the guidelines, which is as follows: “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 C.R.P. NO.148/07 2 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. In the light of the above enunciated principles, it is very clear 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 affording equal opportunities to both sides to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary, in support of their respective contentions. The revision petitioner is directed to appear before the court below on 25.2.08. Since the claimants have not entered appearance before this court, the court below shall give notice to the counsel appearing for the claimants and then dispose of the matte in accordance with law. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.148/07 3