IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 CRP.No. 1047 of 2006 OPELE.270/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT: PETITIONER -------------------------- SUDHAMANI, KAYALUVELUMPEAL (MOODAPARAMBIL), KUMARAPURAM, POTHAPALLY(N). ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ C.R.P. NO.1047 OF 2006 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011 O R D E R This Revision is filed by the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited challenging the judgment dated 12.4.2006 in O.P.(Ele) No.270 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge of Mavelikkara. 2. For the purpose of drawing Kayamkulam-Pallom 220 KV electric line, trees were cut from the property belonging to the respondent. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded, the respondent filed O.P.(Ele) No.270 of 2002 before the court below for enhancement of compensation. The court below allowed the Original Petition in part and passed an award for `51,780/- with interest at 6% per annum. The court below relied on the decision of the Full Bench in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542) and awarded compensation in respect of the trees cut in accordance with the principles laid down therein. The court below also awarded compensation for diminution of land value. Even after holding that C.R.P. NO.1047 OF 2006 :: 2 :: no acceptable evidence was adduced in respect of the contention of the respondent that the entire land was affected on account of the drawing of the line, the court below awarded compensation for diminution of land value making a guess work. 3. In K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)), it was held as under: “10. 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 was meant to be used. 11. 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.” 4. In the light of the principles laid down in Livisha's case, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the court C.R.P. NO.1047 OF 2006 :: 3 :: below. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment of the court below is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below for fresh disposal in the light of the principles laid down in Livisha's case and other binding precedents. Both the parties would be entitled to adduce evidence in support of their contentions. The parties shall appear before the court below on 21.2.2011. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/