IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 641 of 2005() --------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP (Ele) 344/02 OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, KAYAMKULAM TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS: ------------------------- 1. SMT. PRABHAVATHI, PUTHENVEETTIL, ERICKAVU P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. *R2. “SRI. UTHAMAN, CHIRAYIL PADIJATTETHIL PATHIYANKARA, THIRKUNNAPUZHA P.O. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DT. 23.3.07 IN IA 824/07 ADDL. R2 BY ADV. SMT.A.SALINI LAL THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 641 OF 2005 --------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha, in OP (Ele) 344/02. By the said award, an additional compensation of Rs.29,870/- is awarded. The court has granted Rs.20,870.27 as additional compensation for the trees cut and removed and Rs.9,000/- towards diminution of land value. A perusal of Para.6 of the award clearly indicates that the court has applied the principles laid down in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B [2000 (1) KLT 542] whereby the annuity factor is ordered to be taken as 5%. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has drawn my attention to the decision of the Apex court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] wherein this court held that each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of that case. The Apex court has also given the guidelines which is as follows: “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 C.R.P. NO.641/05 2 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.” 2. In the light of the enunciated principles, 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 affording equal opportunities to both sides to adduce evidence both oral and documentary in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the same in accordance with the principles laid down in the decision referred to above. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 22.2.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.641/05 3