Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18788 of 2006)
The Kerala State Electricity Board ...Appellant
Versus
Chinamma Antony ...
Respondent
J U D G M E N T
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 Judge, Thodupuzha, 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:
2
“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
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’s case
(supra) 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’s case
(supra) 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
3
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, and in The Kerala State Electricity
Board v. B. Sreekumari (2008 (5) SCC 398), 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 decisions referred to above.
6. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.
…………………………………J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
………………………………..J.
(H.S. BEDI)
4
New Delhi,
July 15, 2008
5
6