IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 1711 of 2002() ---------------------- OP 656/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ---------------------------- K.S.E.BOARD, REP; BY SECRETARY, KSEB, VAIDHYUTHIBHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ASOK.M.CHERIAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ----------------------- A.C.DEVADASAN, S/O. GOVINDAN, AGED 64 YEARS, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, AMBILAR DESOM. BY ADV. SMT. VIDYA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP 4170/02 IN C.R.P 1711/02 DISMISSED 5.2.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1711 OF 2002 --------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the award of the District Judge, Thalassery, in OP 656/99, whereby the learned District Judge has granted an additional compensation of Rs.97,200/-. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits before me that in the light of the decision reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] the Apex court has held that each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of that case. The court below relied upon the decision reported in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. [2000 (1) KLT 542] wherein the court has ordered to take uniform annuity of 5% for calculation of compensation. In the decision reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] the Apex court has 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 C.R.P. 1711/02 2 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.” 3. So in the light of the enunciated principles, it appears 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 allowing both sides to adduce both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 17.3.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps