Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1994 of 2008
PETITIONER:
The Kerala State Electricity Board
RESPONDENT:
B. Sreekumari
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/03/2008
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CIVIL APPEAL No 1994 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C ) No. 14309 of 2006)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissing the Civil
Revision Petition filed by the appellant-the Kerala State
Electricity Board (in short the ’Board’). Challenge in the Civil
Revision was to the order passed by Learned Additional
District No. 1 Mavelikara granting the enhanced compensation
for alleged loss suffered by the respondent (hereinafter referred
to as the ’claimant’) on account of drawal of electricity line over
her property. The dispute related to the compensation
awarded for diminution in land value and the grant of interest.
Relying on a full Bench decision on a Kerala High Court in
Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. [2002 (1) KLT 542], the High Court
dismissed the Civil Revision Petition.
3. 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 in Kamba
Amma’s case (supra) 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.
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
each case. We may, incidentally, refer to a recent
decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer
v. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao5 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
Punjab6, State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh7,
para 4 and Airports Authority of India v.
Satyagopal Roy8. In Airports Authority8 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 case7
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 case, there shall
be no order as to costs.
4. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent
though notice has been served.
5. Following the view expressed by this Court in the
decision referred to above, we set aside the impugned order of
the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh
consideration keeping in view the principles set out in the
decision referred to above.
6. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.