IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 732 of 2005(A) ---------------------- OPELE.340/1999 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 ------------------------------------ 1. B.SULOCHANA, W/O.DR.JAGADEESH SHARMA, AGED 48 YEARS, BALAYA HOUSE, BELAPPU VILLAGE, PANIEER POST, VIA-UCHILA UDIPPI TALUK, SOUTH KANARA DIST., KARNATAKA STATE FROM HARIDAS BHAVAN, CHUTTUPADU KARA, EDAPPALLY, NORTH PAKUTHY, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, DIST. KERALA. 2. MRS. LATHA DEVADAS, AGED 44 YEARS, 634 AKSHATA 29TH MAIN, 14TH CROSS J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE. 3. B.N.DEVADAS, HARIDAS BHAVANAM, CHUTTUPADU KARA, EDAPPALLY NORTH PAKUTHY, KANAYANNUT TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI SMT.R.LEKSHMI RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT ----------------------- THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K. KARUNAKARAN,SC FOR KSEB THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 732 O2005F --------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition arises out of O.P.(Ele.) No.340 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Court, (Adhoc II), Ernakulam. The revision petitioners relying on the decision reported in K.S.E.B. v.. Livisha, 2007(3) K.L.T. 1(SC) request the 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 C.R.P.NO.732/2005 2 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 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 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. 3. In the light of the said decision of the Supreme Court, the matter has to be reconsidered by the court below and an opportunity has to be given to both sides to adduce evidence to establish proper compensation payable in the case and determination of the said fact is necessitated on the basis of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. C.R.P.NO.732/2005 3 4. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp C.R.P.NO.732/2005 4 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P.NO O R D E R 7TH JANUARY, 2008