IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 1080 of 2007() ---------------------- OPELE.310/2002 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT -------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ----------------------- SRI. MUHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, KADAPRA VILLAGE, NIRANAM VADAKKUMBHAGAM MURI, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA 586/08 IN C.R.P 1080/07 DISMISSED 12.3.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1080 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 ORDER This civil revision petition is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, Pathanamthitta, in OP(Ele) 310/02 whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation Rs.1,26,665/-. 2. A perusal of para 7 of the award would reveal that relying upon the decision in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. [2000 (1) KLT 542], Rs.21,931 is awarded as enhanced compensation for the trees cut. It is submitted that uniform annuity return of 5% cannot be taken in the light of the decision reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] and therefore the matter requires reconsideration. 3. It is further contended that the land value fixed is improper and the area taken for fixing the affected land is incorrect and the percentage of diminution fixed is very high. These are all matters which require consideration at the hands of the court below. It is not stated as to how this 27.129 cents of land are affected. While fixing this, the court has to take into consideration very many materials. It has not been done in this case. C.R.P. NO.1080/07 2 4. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for fresh consideration by directing the court below to permit both sides to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and then decide the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 23.5.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.1080/07 3