Kerala High Court
Kerala State Electricity Board vs Sri.V.K.Abdul Khadir on 18 February, 2009
Author: Harun-Ul-Rashid
Bench: Harun-Ul-Rashid
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.