REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4702 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.12436 of 2006)

Kerala State Electricity Board …Appellant  

Versus

C.P. Sivasankara Menon …Respondent

With

Civil Appeal No.4703/2008 @ S.L.P. (C) No.12438/2006

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

S.L.P.(C) No.12436 and S.L.P. (C) No. 12438 of 2006

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge  in  these  appeals  in  each  case  is  to  the

1

judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court

dismissing the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellant.  In

the civil revision petition, challenge was to the order passed by

learned  Additional  District  Judge,  North  Paravur,  in  O.P.

(Electricity) No.40/1996 and 43/96.  Several revision petitions

were disposed of on the basis of an earlier decision of the High

Court in CRP No.507 of 2001 by order dated 03.12.2004.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant

that the view of the High Court is not correct.  The appellant-

Board  cut  down  certain  yielding  rubber  trees,  19  coconut

trees, pepper vines, areca nut trees and mango trees for the

purpose of laying down 220 KV electric line. The respondents

were not satisfied with the awarded amount as determined for

payment as compensation.   O.P. No.40/1996 in one case and

43/1996 in the  other  case  were  filed  before  the  Trial Court

claiming  additional  compensation,  which  was  allowed.  The

stand of the appellant in this case is that the relevant position

in law was not kept  in view by the High Court. The dispute

related to the compensation awarded for valuation of the yield

2

of the trees and also for the future age of the same and the

grant of interest.  

4. In  support  of  the  appeal,  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant-Board submitted that the High Court's judgment is

clearly  unsustainable  as  the  Full  Bench  decision  of  Kerala

High Court in  Kumba Amma v.  K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542)

was set  aside  by  this Court  in  The  Kerala  State  Electricity

Board v.  Livisha etc. etc. [2007(6) SCC 792] by the common

judgment  in  Civil  Appeal  No.  289  of  2006  and  other  Civil

Appeals. This Court set aside the impugned order in each case

and remitted  the  matter  back to the  High Court for a fresh

consideration.  It was, inter-alia, observed as follows:

"10.  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  tract  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.

3

11. 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.  We  may, incidentally, refer  to a recent  decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao (2007 (3) SCC 526) wherein claim  on  yield  basis  has  been  held  to  be relevant  for  determining  the  amount  of compensation  payable  under  the  Land Acquisition  Act;  same  principle  has  been reiterated  in Kapur  Singh Mistri  v.  Financial Commr. & Revenue  Secy. to Govt. of  Punjab (1995 Supp. (2) SCC 635), State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh (1995  Supp.  (2)  SCC 637), para  4  and  Airports  Authority  of  India  v. Satyagopal Roy (2002 (3) SCC 527). In Airports Authority it was held: (SCC p. 533, para 14)

“14.  Hence,  in  our  view,  there  was  no reason  for  the  High Court  not  to  follow the  decision  rendered  by  this  Court  in Gurcharan Singh case and determine the compensation  payable  to  the respondents  on  the  basis  of  the  yield from  the  trees  by  applying  8  years' multiplier. In this view of the matter, in our view, the High Court committed error apparent  in  awarding  compensation adopting the multiplier of 18.”

12. We are, therefore,  of the opinion that the High Court should consider the matter afresh on the merit of each matter having regard to the  fact  situation  obtaining  therein.  The impugned  judgments,  therefore,  cannot  be sustained.  These  are  set  aside  accordingly. The matters are remitted to the High Court for consideration thereon afresh. The appeals are allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the

4

case, there shall be no order as to costs.”

5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents

in each case though notice has been served.

6. Following the  view  expressed  by  this  Court  in  the

decisions referred to above, we set aside the impugned order

of the High Court in each case and remit the matter to it for

fresh consideration keeping in view the principles set out in

the decision referred to above.

6. The  appeals  are  allowed  without  any  order  as  to

costs.

……….………………….……….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……..…………………………….J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, July 29, 2008    

5