Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4702 OF 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.12436 of 2006)
Kerala State Electricity Board …Appellant
Versus
C.P. Sivasankara Menon …Respondent
With
Civil Appeal No.4703/2008 @ S.L.P. (C) No.12438/2006
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, 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
1
judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court
dismissing the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellant. In
the civil revision petition, challenge was to the order passed by
learned Additional District Judge, North Paravur, in O.P.
(Electricity) No.40/1996 and 43/96. Several revision petitions
were disposed of on the basis of an earlier decision of the High
Court in CRP No.507 of 2001 by order dated 03.12.2004.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that the view of the High Court is not correct. The appellant-
Board cut down certain yielding rubber trees, 19 coconut
trees, pepper vines, areca nut trees and mango trees for the
purpose of laying down 220 KV electric line. The respondents
were not satisfied with the awarded amount as determined for
payment as compensation. O.P. No.40/1996 in one case and
43/1996 in the other case were filed before the Trial Court
claiming additional compensation, which was allowed. The
stand of the appellant in this case is that the relevant position
in law was not kept in view by the High Court. The dispute
related to the compensation awarded for valuation of the yield
2
of the trees and 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 submitted that the High Court's judgment is
clearly unsustainable as the Full Bench decision of Kerala
High Court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542)
was set aside by this Court in The Kerala State Electricity
Board v. Livisha etc. etc. [2007(6) SCC 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:
"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 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.
3
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 Acquisition Officer v. Kamadana
Ramakrishna Rao (2007 (3) SCC 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)
“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 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.”
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 Court for
consideration thereon afresh. The appeals are
allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the
4
case, there shall be no order as to costs.”
5. There 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
decisions 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 decision referred to above.
6. The appeals are allowed without any order as to
costs.
……….………………….……….J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
……..…………………………….J.
(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
New Delhi,
July 29, 2008
5