IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 CRP.No. 29 of 2005 ELEOP.355/1996 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: --------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: --------------- PENGAN, AGED 74, S/O.AYYAPPAN, VALAVANTHITTA, EROOR, NADAMA VILLAGE, TRIPUNITHURA. ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD SRI.N.SATHEESH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2011, ALONG WITH C.R.P.NO.71 OF 2005 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ C.R.P. NOS.29, 71 & 73 OF 2005 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011 O R D E R All these cases arise out of the common order dated 31.5.2004 in O.P.(Ele.)No.343 of 1996 and connected cases. 2. C.R.P.No.112 of 2005, which arose out of O.P.(Ele.) No.99 of 1997, one of the cases dealt with by the common order impugned, was disposed of as per the order dated 10.6.2008, remanding the case to the court below for fresh disposal. 3. All these Revisions relate to the cutting of trees for the purpose of Aroor-Kalamassery 110 KV line. The Kerala State Electricity Board granted compensation. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimants filed the Original Petitions before the court below. The court below relied on the decision of the Full Bench in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000(1) KLT 542). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in C.R.P. NOS. 29, 71 & 73 OF 2005 :: 2 :: view of the decision of the Supreme Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)), the matter requires reconsideration by the court below as held in C.R.P.No.112 of 2005, a connected case which was disposed of by the order dated 10.6.2008. 5. In K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)), it was held as under: “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 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. 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. 12. We may, incidentally, refer to a recent decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer, A.P. v. Kamandana Ramakrishna Rao & Anr. reported in 2007 C.R.P. NOS. 29, 71 & 73 OF 2005 :: 3 :: AIR SCW 1145 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 Mistry v. Financial Commission & Revenue Secretary to Govt. of Punjab & Ors. 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 635, State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh & Anr. (1995 Supp.(2) SCC 637) para 4, and Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 527. In Airport Authority (supra), it was held:- “14. Hence, in our view, there was no reason for the High Court not to follow the decision rendered by this Court in Gurucharan Singh's 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.”” 6. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)), it is necessary to consider the matter afresh by the court below. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The common order impugned is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below for fresh disposal in the light of the principles laid down in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)). Both the parties will be entitled to an opportunity to adduce C.R.P. NOS. 29, 71 & 73 OF 2005 :: 4 :: additional evidence to substantiate their respective contentions. The parties shall appear before the court below on 16.2.2011. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/