IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 825 of 2007(Y) ---------------------------------- O.P.(ELE) NO.110/1999 OF DISTRICT COURT, KASARGOD REVISION PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------- SMT. B. SAVITHRI, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, KANATHUM MOOLA, P.O. PANAYAL. BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 825 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 8thday of February, 2008 ORDER This civil revision petition is preferred against the award of the District Judge, Kasargod, in OP(Ele) 110/99 whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 25,269/-. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits before me that the compensation has been awarded on the basis of the decision of this court 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. It is seen so, on a perusal of para 8 of the award as well. The award also does not precisely contained the basis on which compensation is calculated. Learned counsel has brought to my notice the decision of the Apex court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] wherein the Apex court 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 C.R.P. 825/07 2 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 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 absence of particulars I feel 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 decide the matter in the light of the enunciated principles referred to in the decision of the Apex court. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 24.3.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. 825/07 3