Power Grid Corporation Of India … vs Sri. M.M.Mathews on 6 March, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 276 of 2007()


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

                        Vs



1. SRI. M.M.MATHEWS, AGED 54 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SMT. SUSAMMA MATHEWS, AGED 45 YEARS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.A.SHAFIK

                For Respondent  :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH

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

 Dated :06/03/2008

 O R D E R
                        M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                   -------------------------------------------
                        C.R.P.No.276 of 2007
                  -------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008


                                  ORDER

This revision petition is preferred against the award of the

Additional District Judge, Kottayam, whereby the court below

has granted an enhanced compensation of Rs.70,550/- with 6%

interest. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would

contend that the court 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. 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 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

CRP No.276/2007 2

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 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.

Parties are directed to appear before the court below on

7.4.2008.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
csl