Power Grid Corporation Of India … vs Mrs.Lalitha Bai Antharjanam on 20 June, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 1042 of 2005()


1. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MRS.LALITHA BAI ANTHARJANAM,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :20/06/2008

 O R D E R
                          HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
                      ------------------------------------------
                         C.R.P No. 1042 of 2005
                     -------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 20th day of June 2008

                                     ORDER

This Civil revision Petition is filed against the order in O.P (Ele)

No. 301/1998 on the file of the Additional District judge, Pathanamthitta.

The revision petitioner relying on the decision reported in K.S.E.B. v..

Livisha, 2007(3) K.L.T. 1(SC) requests the 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 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

C.R.P No. 1042 of 2005 -2-

(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. Counsel on both sides 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. 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

C.R.P No. 1042 of 2005 -3-

remitted to the court below for fresh consideration after affording an

opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence in support of their respective

contentions.

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.

(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)

es/