IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 594 of 2005(I)
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SANKARAN (DIED) AGED 66,
... Respondent
2. MANI, D/O.OOLY & SISTER OF LATE SANKARAN
For Petitioner :SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, KSEB
For Respondent :SRI.A.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :07/11/2007
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID,J
===========================
C.R.P.Nos.594, 1106, 1122, 1131, 1212 of 2005
&
57 of 2006
==================-===========
Dated this the 7th day of November, 2007
ORDER
These revision petitions arise out of OP(Ele.) Nos.361/97,
112/1997, 347/1997,110/97 and 22/1997 respectively on the file
of the Additional District Court, Ernakulam. These revision
petitions are filed by the petitioners in the O.P and the
respondent K.S.E.B challenging the respective orders in their
cases passed by a common order. 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
C.R.P.Nos.594, 1106, 1122, 1131, 1212 of 2005 & 57 of 2006
2
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 counsel for both sides submitted that the matter
requires reconsideration on the basis of the Supreme Court
decision. Hence, 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 all the cases and
determination of the said fact is necessitated on the basis of the
principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
C.R.P.Nos.594, 1106, 1122, 1131, 1212 of 2005 & 57 of 2006
3
4. Therefore the orders under challenge are 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.
Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of as accordingly.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE
dvs