IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 1003 of 2007() ---------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD. 27/02/2007 IN OP(EA) NO.470 OF 2002 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA) REVISION PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------ POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------- SUMATHY, PUTHENTHOPPIL, KUMARAPURAM P.O. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- C.R.P.No.1003 OF 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ Respondent served. No representation. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner. 2. This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha, whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.43,046/- with 6% interest. The court arrived at a figure mainly depending upon the dictum laid down in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. reported in 2000(1) KLT 542. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has brought to my notice that by subsequent decision of the Apex court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha reported in 2007(3) KLT 1, the court has held that each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case. The Apex court has also 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 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 tress 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. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District court for fresh consideration after affording equal opportunities to both parties to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter, in accordance with law. Since the respondent has not entered appearance before the court below, the court shall give notice to her counsel, if any, for proceeding further with the matter. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 26.3.2008. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps