IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 CRP.No. 1856 of 1999(G) ----------------------- ELE (OP).222/1992 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- YAKOB, S/O ULAHANNAN , PARAKKAL HOUSE MANNAMANGALAM VILAGE BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENT: --------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY K.S.E. BOARD , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB FOR R SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/04/2009, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 1858 OF 1999 CRP NO. 2091 OF 1999 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.Nos. 1856, 1858 & 2091 of 1999 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009 ORDER These Civil revision Petitions are filed against the orders of the District Court, Thrissur. The revision petitioners relying on the decision reported in K.S.E.B. vs. Livisha, 2007(3) K.L.T. 1(SC) requests 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 & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 527. In Airport Authority (supra), it was held:- “14. Hence, in our view, there was no -2- 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.' ” 2. Counsel for the revision petitioners 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 his contentions in the light of the said Supreme Court decision. 3. In the light of the said decision of the Supreme Court, the matters have to be reconsidered by the courts below and an opportunity has to be given to both sides in the respective cases to adduce evidence to establish proper compensation payable in the respective cases and determination of the said fact is necessitated on the basis of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. 4. Therefore, the orders under challenge are set aside and the matters are remitted to the courts below for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to both sides in the respective cases, to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. These Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of accordingly. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es/ HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------- C.R.P.Nos. 1856, 1859 & 2091 of 1999 ---------------------------- ORDER 3rd April, 2009