IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 300 of 2007()
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SRI.V.K.ABDUL KHADIR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :18/02/2009
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
---------------------------
C.R.P.NOS.707, 949 OF 2006 &
300 & 466 OF 2007
----------------------------
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009
O R D E R
These revision Petitions are filed against the order in the
Ele.O.Ps. filed for claiming compensation. The revision petitioner
in these revisions relying on the decision reported in K.S.E.B. vs.
Livisha, 2007(3) K.L.T. 1(SC) requests 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
-2-
C.R.P.Nos.707/06 &
connected cases.
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.
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.’ ”
2. The learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.E.B.
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.
-3-
C.R.P.Nos.707/06 &
connected cases.
3. 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
principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
4. 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 evidence in
support of their respective contentions.
These Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of accordingly.
HARUN-UL-RASHID,
Judge.
kcv.