IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.                OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18788 of 2006)

The Kerala State Electricity Board ...Appellant

Versus

Chinamma Antony     ... Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned

Single  Judge  of  the  Kerala  High  Court  dismissing  the  Civil

Revision  Petition  filed  by  the  appellant-the  Kerala  State

Electricity Board (in short the ‘Board’). Challenge in the Civil

Revision  was  to  the  order  passed  by  Learned  Additional

District  Judge,  Thodupuzha,  granting  the  enhanced

compensation  for  alleged  loss  suffered  by  the  respondent

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘claimant’) on account of drawal

of electricity line over her property.  The dispute related to the

compensation awarded for diminution in land value and the

grant of interest. Relying on a full Bench decision on a Kerala

High Court in  Kumba Amma v.  K.S.E.B. [2002 (1) KLT 542],

the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition.

3. 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  in Kamba

Amma’s case (supra) 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:

2

“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.

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’s case (supra) 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’s case (supra) 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

3

facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

4. There  is  no  appearance  on  behalf  of  the  respondent

though notice has been served.

5. Following  the  view  expressed  by  this  Court  in  the

decision referred to above, and in The Kerala State Electricity

Board v.  B. Sreekumari (2008 (5) SCC 398), we set aside the

impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it

for fresh consideration keeping in view the principles set out

in the decisions referred to above.

6. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.

…………………………………J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………………………..J. (H.S. BEDI)

4

New Delhi, July 15,  2008

5

6