http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1994 of 2008

PETITIONER: The Kerala State Electricity Board

RESPONDENT: B. Sreekumari

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/03/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL No  1994 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C ) No. 14309 of 2006)

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 No. 1 Mavelikara 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:

"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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

each case. We may, incidentally, refer to a recent  decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer  v. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao5 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  Punjab6, State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh7,  para 4 and Airports Authority of India v.  Satyagopal Roy8. In Airports Authority8 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 case7  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 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, 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  decision referred to above.

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