The Managing Director vs Kurian Abraham on 30 January, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 725 of 2007()


1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KURIAN ABRAHAM, S/O.LATE KURIAN,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :30/01/2008

 O R D E R
                              M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                              --------------------------
                           C.R.P. NO. 725 OF 2007
                                ---------------------
                 Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008

                                     ORDER

This revision petition is preferred against the award of the

District Judge Alappuzha in OP (Ele) 7/01 whereby the court below

awarded an additional compensation of Rs.51,060 with 6% interest.

2. Respondent served. 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 has relied upon the decision of the Apex court 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 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.725/07 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.”

3. 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.725/07 3

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

vps

C.R.P. NO.725/07 4