IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 2583 of 2001() -------------------------------- EL.OP.174/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ---------------------------- K.S.E.BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ----------------------- KAMBAKKARAN NARAYANAN NAIR, S/O. CHANDUKUTTY, AGRICULTURIST, KANHIRANGAD P.O. BY ADV. SRI. K.P. SRI.SARVOTHAMAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 2583 OF 2001 --------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 ORDER Heard both sides. This revision petition is preferred against the award of the Additional District Judge, Thalassery in OP 174/99 whereby the court below has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.60,579/- with 8% interest. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has brought to my notice the factum that the court below has relied upon 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. Learned counsel submits that 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 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 C.R.P. NO.2583/01 2 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. So in the light of the enunciated principles, it appears that 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 dispose of 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 1.3.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.2583/01 3