IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 CRP.No. 77 of 2006() -------------------- EOP.78/2001 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY THE SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSIOM DIVISION, K.S.E.B., VENNAKKARA, PALAKKAD. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. SUB STATION, SUB DIVISION, PALAKKAD. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER ------------------------- M/S.MYTHRI CONSTRUCTIONS, KANNANCHERRY ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 003, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER E.KUTTAPPAN, S/O.KELU. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 6/1/2009, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 160 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.379/06 & IA.NO.611/06 IN CRP.NO.77/06 ------------- Dismissed 6/1/2009 Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- C.R.P.NOS.77 & 160 OF 2006 ---------------------------- DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY,2009 O R D E R The order in O.P.(Ele.) No.78/2001 on the file of the District Court, Palakkad is challenged by the petitioner and the respondent. According to the petitioners in CRP.No.160/2006, the fixation of market value at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent is very low and requires modification. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the percentage fixed as 20% for diminution in land value also requires modification. The learned counsel for the K.S.E. Board, which is the petitioner in CRP.No.77/2006, invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court and submitted that the compensation has to be worked out on the basis of the said decision. He also submitted that the actual extent affected by drawing of the line is 150.037 cents as held by the court below. According to the counsel, there is no justification for granting compensation for diminutin in land -2- CRP.Nos.77 & 160/2006 vaue for the vast extent of land, namely, 150.037 cents. 2. The revision petitioners relying on the decision reported in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha, 2007(3) K.L.T. 1(SC) requested to this Court to redetermine the compensation in accordance with the principles laid down in the said decision. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the above judgment, the Supreme Court held as follows: “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 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. Gurucharan Singh & Anr. (1995 Supp. (2) SCC 637) para 4 and Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy & -3- CRP.Nos.77 & 160/2006 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.' ” 3. Counsel on both sides submitted that the matter requires reconsideration on the basis of the Supreme Court decision and requested to afford an opportunity to adduce additional evidence to substantiate their contentions in the light of the said Supreme Court decision. 4. In the light of the said decision of the Supreme Court and in the light of the contentions raised by both sides, I feel that the the matter has to be reconsidered by the court below and an opportunity has to be given to both sides to adduce additional evidence, if any, to establish proper compensation payable in the case and determination of the said fact is necessitated on the -4- CRP.Nos.77 & 160/2006 basis of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. 5. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh consideration. The matter shall be considered afresh, after affording an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions and orders shall be passed by the court below within a period of six months from today. The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.