[2008] 11S.C.R.431

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

C.P. SIVASANKARA MENON (Civil Appeal No.4 702 of 2008)

JULY 29, 2008

[DR. ARIJLT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM

SH~RMA, JJ.]

Compensation:

Compensation for fruit bearing trees - Computation of - C Matter remitted to High Court for fresf] consideration keeping in view the principles.set out by Supreme Court.

' The instant appeals relate to compensation for valuation of yield-of fruit bearing trees cut by the appellant State Electricity Board. It was contended for the appel- D lant that the relevant position in law was not kept in view_ by the High Court. -

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: Following the view expressed by this Court E in Livisha's case* the oraer of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to it for fresh consideration keeping in view the principles set out in thsaid decision. [Para 6] [434-D]

Qase Law Reference F

/ The Kera/a State Electricity Board v. Uvisha etc. etc.

(2007) 7 SCR 356 = 2007(6) SCC 792 followed. [Para 4] - ' Kumba Amma v. K.SE.8~ 2000 (1) KLT 542 cited. [Para 4]

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4702 G of 2008 . ~- ...

4- From the final JudgmeoW!Jld Order dated 6/1/2006 of the High Court of Kerala at Eranakulam in CRP No. 434 of 2001'-'

~1 H

WITH

C.A. No. 4703/2008

M.T. Georg~ for the Appellant.

B The Judgment of the Court.was delivered by

D_r. ARIJIT_.P~SAYATJ J. )-

S.L.P.(C) No.12436 and S.L.P.''(C) No. 12438 of 2006

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in these appeals in each case is to the judgm_ent of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissing the Civil "Revision Petition filedby:the .appellant. lnthe civil _revision, petitipn, chllenge ws to the order passed by leafoed AdditlonaJ Ditrict JUdge, Noh ~ravur, \n O.P. (E!ec,.

D trlcity) N0':40/199"6 and 43/96. Several revision pefitions were

dis.posed of on the basis of an earlier decision cit the High Court in 'cR'P No:5o7 ot' 2061 by order dated'03.12}0_04-, . ;;; ..

3. It is submitted by.learned coun.sel for the appellant that the view of the High C,, urt is not correct The appellnt-Board . E cut down certain yieldrng rubber trees, 1·9 coconut trees, peppet'vines; areci:niuttrees' and mango trees for the purpose of la'ying' down 220 kV electric line. The respondents were not satisfiedwith the awarded amount as' determined for payment as compensation. O.P. No.40/1996 in on'e case anci 43/1996 F in the other case were filed.before the Trial Court claiming additional compensation, which was allowed. The stand of the appellant'in.thls case is that the r, elev.ant position in law was not kept in vieiw by th~ High Court. The dispute rJiated to the com-·

pehsatio~ awarcfed for"valuation of the yield of the trees and G also.for the future age of the same and the grant of interest.

.,. ' ""

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant'.'.'.Board s.ubmitted that the High Court's judgment is clearly unsustainab"le as the Full Bench decision of Kerala High Court.

H . in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542) was set aside

,, I...·

. '

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. C.P. 433

SIVASANKARA MENON [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

by this Court in The Kera/a State Electricity Board v. Livisha A etc. etc. [2007(6) sec 792) by the common judgment in Civil Appeal No. 289 of 2006 and other Civil Appeals. This Court set aside the impugned order in each case and remitted the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration. It was, inter-alia, observed as follows: B

"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 tract of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion C 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. We may, incidentally, refer to a recent decision of this Court in Land E Acquisition Officer v. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao (2007

(3) sec 526) 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 Mistri v. Financial Commr. & Revenue Secy. to Govt. of Punjab (1995 Supp.

(2) SCC 635), State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh (1995 Supp. (2) SCC 637), para 4 and Airports Authority of India

v. Satyagopal Roy (2002 (3) SCC 527). In Airports Authority it was held: (SCC p. 533, para 14) G "14. Hence, in our view, there was no reason for the High Court not to follow the decision rendered by this Court in Gurcharan Singh case and determine the compensation payable to the respondents on the basis of the yield from the trees by applying 8 H

years' multiplier. In this view of the matter, in our vLew, "- the High Court committed error apparent in awardjng compensation ad.opting the multiplier of 18."

12. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court should consider the. matter afresh on the merit of each matter having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein.

The-impugned judgments, therefore, cannot be sustained . . These are set aside accordingly. The matters are remitted . ,., to the High Gourt for consideration thereon afresh. The appeals are allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."

5. Th.ere is no appearance on behalf of the respondents in each case though notice has been served.

6. Following the view.expressed by this Court in the deci- D sions referred to above, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court in each case and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration keeping in view the principles set out in the decisi8n referred to above. ... -- ·· ·

E . 6.The appeals are allowed without any ordr.as to costs.

R.P._ Appeals allowed.