IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 CRP.No. 884 of 2007() --------------------- OPELE.222/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------- S.SUBRAMANYA IYER AMPANATTU MADOM,MAHADEVIKADU P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. POWER GRIDE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD REP. BY THE JUNIOR ENGNEER, KAYAMKULAM TRANSMISSION LINES OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPAD. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA) NO.II POWER GRIDE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD HARIPAD. 3. K.S.E.B.,REP BY ITS SECRETARY VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R3 ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R1& R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/1/2009 ALONG WITH CRP NO. 66 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- C.R.P.NO.884 OF 2007 & C.R.P.NO.66 OF 2008 ---------------------------- DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner and the Ist respondent (Power Grid Corporation of India) in O.P.(Ele.)222/02 are the revision petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.884/07 and 66/08 respectively. The above Civil revision Petitions are filed against the order in O.P (Ele) No. 222/2002 on the file of the Additional District judge, Mavelikkara. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner in CRP.No.66/84 brought to the attention of this Court the finding of the court below that 61 cents of land is affected by drawing of line and the said finding is without any basis. The claimant did not not take out any Commission to ascertain the actual area affected by drawing of the line. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in CRP.No.884/2007 submitted that the market value fixed at the rate of Rs.5,000/- and the percentage granted by the court below -2- CRP.Nos.884/07 & 66/08 for diminution in land value are too low and as a moderate rate the percentage would have been 30%. The rival contentions are not re-examined in detail by the court below. Therefore, remand is necessitated. 3. The revision petitioner relying on the decision reported in K.S.E.B. vs. Livisha, 2007(3) K.L.T. 1(SC) requested 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. -3- CRP.Nos.884/07 & 66/08 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.' ” 4. Counsel for the Corporation 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. 5. 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 -4- CRP.Nos.884/07 & 66/08 principles laid down by the Supreme Court. 6. 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 additional evidence, if any, in support of their respective contentions. The court below shall dispose of the mater, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties shall appear before the court below on 7/2/2009. The Civil Revision Petition are allowed as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.