Power Grid Corporation Of India … vs Mercy on 10 January, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 161 of 2007()


1. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MERCY, W/O. JOHNSON,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :10/01/2008

 O R D E R
                          M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                          --------------------------
                       C.R.P. NO. 161 OF 2007
                            ---------------------
              Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008

                                 ORDER

This revision petition is preferred against the award of the

1st Additional District Judge, Palakkad in O.P.(Electricity) 20/1993

whereby the 1st Additional District Judge has awarded an additional

compensation of Rs.62,095/- with 6% interest.

2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits

before me that the court has relied on the decision of this court

reported 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

would argue that in the light of the Apex court decision in K.S.E.B. v.

Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] each case has to be decided on the facts

and circumstances of that case. The Apex has 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
relevant factors in our opinion would be
determinative. The value of the land would also be a

C.R.P. NO.161/07 2

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. In the light of the above enunciated principles, it is very

clear that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the

court below. Learned counsel also pointed out to me that there is a

calculation mistake committed by the court below in Para. 14 and 15

of the award, which also requires reconsideration.

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 decide the matter afresh in the light of the principles laid

down in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1].

Parties are directed to appear before the court below on

25.2.08

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

vps

C.R.P. NO.161/07 3