IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 194 of 2007(B) --------------------------------- O.P (ELE).42/2002 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA. .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENT/ PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------- OMANAYAMMA, CHENGILIYIL, NANGIARKULANGARA P.O., HARIPAD. BY ADV. SRI. R.AZAD BABU. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. No.194 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of January 2008 O R D E R Respondent served. This revision petition is preferred against the judgment of the Addl.District Court-I, Mavelikkara in O.P.(Ele.)42 of 2002, whereby the court below has awarded compensation of Rs.53,761/- with 6% interest. A perusal of the award would reveal that the court below has relied on the decision of this Court reported in Kumba Amma v. KSEB (2000(1) KLT 542), whereby 5% annuity has been taken. Learned counsel had drawn by attention to the decision of the Apex Court reported in KSEB v. LIVISHA(2007(3) KLT 1(SC), wherein it is 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 owner of the land furthermore, in a given situation may lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose CRP 194/2007 -:2:- 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 said decision, the matter requires reconsideration. Therefore the award 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 26.2.2008. C.R.P is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-