IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 819 of 2007() --------------------- OPEA.33/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ----------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------ SRI. K.J.THOMAS, RES. AT KALLOLICKAL HOUSE, PLASANAL P.O., THALAPPALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL SRI.T.V.VINU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA 2216/07 IN C.R.P 819/07 DISMISSED 18.3.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 819 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Kottayam, in OP (EA) 33/03 whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.35,104/- with 6% interest. The court below had granted an amount of Rs. 9,004/- for the value of trees cut and Rs.21,600/- for diminution of land value plus Rs.4,500/- for the loss of land value where the tower is erected. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the court has not taken into consideration the materials for allowing compensation for the trees cut but has relied upon the dictum laid down 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 light of the Apex court decision 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 and for that purpose it 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 C.R.P. No. 819/07 2 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.” 3. There is considerable force in the said contention. Learned counsel would also contend that the compensation for diminution of land value has also to be reconsidered for the reason that the court below has granted the compensation in the absence of any evidence or documents supporting such award. It has simply stated that nowadays the price of the property is increased. It shall not be the sole criteria for fixing the rate of the property unless it is based on some of the materials supplied by the parties. 4. 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 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 27.5.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. No. 819/07 3