Power Grid Corporation Of India … vs Annamma Mathai Panicker on 23 January, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 1001 of 2007()


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

                        Vs



1. ANNAMMA MATHAI PANICKER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. GEORGE PANICKER,

3. SAM PANICKER,  -DO- -DO-.

4. THOMAS PANICKER  -DO- -DO-.

5. SUSAN BABU  -DO- -DO-.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

                For Respondent  :SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE

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

 Dated :23/01/2008

 O R D E R
                             M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                             --------------------------
                         C.R.P. NO. 1001 OF 2007
                               ---------------------
                Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2008

                                    ORDER

This revision petition is preferred against the award of the

Additional District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P.(EA) 136/02 whereby the

court below has passed an award enhancing the compensation by

Rs. 1,24,548/- with 6% interest.

2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner brings to my

notice that the court has relied upon the principles laid down by 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 for the revision petitioner argued

before me that the Apex court in its decision reported in K.S.E.B. v.

Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1] 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

C.R.P. NO.1001/07 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. So in the light of these guidelines, 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 decide the matter in the light of

the enunciated principles referred to in the decision of the Apex

court.

The parties are directed to appear before the court below on

26.2.08.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

vps

C.R.P. NO.1001/07 3