IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 1087 of 2005()
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (LA),
Vs
1. MR. HAMSA, S/O. MOHAMMED,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
For Respondent :SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :11/01/2008
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID,J
===========================
C.R.P.No.1087 of 2005
==================-===========
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008
ORDER
This revision petition arises out of O.P.(Ele.) No.57/1998,
on the file of the District Court, Palakkad. The revision
petitioners, relying on the decision reported in K.S.E.B v.
Livisha 2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC), request the court to
redetermine the compensation in accordance with the principles
laid down in the said decision. Honourable Supreme Court in
the said decision in para 11 and 12 stated the principles 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 (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
C.R.P.No.1087/2005
2
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 counsel for both sides submitted that the matter
requires reconsideration on the basis of the Supreme Court
decision and requested to afford an opportunity to adduce
further evidence and produce such other materials 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 the
opportunity has to be given to both sides to adduce evidence to
establish proper compensation payable in the case. A
redetermination of the said fact is necessitate on the basis of the
principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
4. Therefore the order under challenge are set aside and
the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh consideration
after afford an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence in
support of their respective contentions.
Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE
dvs