IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 599 of 2005(B)
1. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SRI.KURUVILA, S/O.YOHANNAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SHAFIK M.ABDUL KHADIR
For Respondent :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :27/06/2008
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
------------------------------------------
C.R.P No.599 of 2005
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of June 2008
ORDER
This Civil revision Petition is filed against the order in O.P (EA)
No. 57/2001 on the file of the District judge, Alappuzha 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. (1995Supp.(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. 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
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/
