Power Grid Corporation Of India … vs Sarasamma on 16 January, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 269 of 2007()


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

                        Vs



1. SARASAMMA, D/O. KUTTIYAMMA,
                       ...       Respondent

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

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :16/01/2008

 O R D E R
                             M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                             --------------------------
                          C.R.P. NO. 269 OF 2007
                               ---------------------
                Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008

                                    ORDER

This revision petition is preferred against the award of the

Additional District Judge, Alappuzha, in O.P. (E.A.) 500/2002

whereby the court has awarded an additional compensation of

Rs.31,920/- with 7.5% interest. A perusal of the award would reveal

that the court has relied upon the decision of this court in Kumba

Amma v. K.S.E.B. [2000 (1) KLT 542] wherein this court has

directed to take uniform annuity of 5% for calculation of

compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my

attention to the decision reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha [2007 (3)

KLT 1] wherein the Apex court has held that each case has to be

considered on the facts and circumstances of that case and for that

purpose the Apex court 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
property for the purpose for which the same was meant to

C.R.P. NO.269/07 2

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 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 trial court for fresh consideration, after allowing both

sides to adduce both oral and documentary evidence in support of

their respective contentions, and to decide 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

26.2.08.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

vps

C.R.P. NO.269/07 2

C.R.P. NO.269/07 2