IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 31 of 2007 -------------------------- OP9ELE) NO. 34/2002 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA ................................ REVN. PETITIONER: IST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER. ---------------------------------------- KRISHNAKUTTY NAIR, VATTAKOTTAYIL, KIZHAKKATHIL, KANJOOR P.O. CHEPPAD. BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. No.31 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 17th day of January 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Addl.District Court-I, Mavelikkara, whereby the court has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.90,720/-. Learned counsel had referred to paragraph 12 of the award whereby it is seen that 5% annuity has been taken into consideration as per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B(2000(1) KLT 542. Learned counsel had drawn my attention to the decision of the Apex Court reported in KSEB v. Livisha (2007(3) KLT 1(SC), wherein it has 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 for which the same CRP 31/2007 -:2:- 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 and for which additional particulars may be necessary. 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 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/-