IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1202 of 2005 ------------------------------ O.P.ELE.NO. 57/2001 OFADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, K.S.E.BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, KSEB. RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, PULICKAL HOUSE, MUNIYARAKKARA, KONNATHADY VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE, ADV. SRI.ALBERT JOSE. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 1202 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Thodupuzha in O.P.(Ele.)57/01. By the said award the Court below has awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.16,341/-. A perusal of point No.1 in paragraph 4 of the award would reveal that the Court has applied the principles laid down in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542). Basing on that decision the Court has applied a return of 5%. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has brought my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT page 1) where the Apex Court has held that each case is to be considered 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 CRP NO. 1202 of 2005 -:2:- 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 trees are concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” 2. In the light of the above said 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 permitting both the sides to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. The parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 25.2.08. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-