The Kerala State Electricity Board vs Livisha Etc. Etc on 18 May, 2007
In paragraph 10 to 12 of the Judgment in
Livisha's case, the Apex Court has observed as
under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)Shaik Imambi vs Spl.Dy.Collector.(Land ... on 2 February, 2011
In a recent decision of the Apex Court in the
case of SHAIK IMAMBI Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY
COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION), TELUGU GANGA
PROJECT - (2011) 11 SCC 639, it is clear that the
multiplier of 10 has been applied for determining the
market value of the agricultural land including fruit
bearing tree. Therefore, the multiplier to be adopted
in a case like this cannot be more than 10. The
learned District Judge has made a mistake in
applying multiplier of 35 in arriving at the value of the
fruit bearing tree for the purpose of awarding
compensation."
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
State Of Haryana vs Gurcharan Singh & Anr. Etc on 18 January, 1995
21. One thing is certain that the multiplier to be
adopted cannot be commensurate with the economic
lifespan of the tree as has been done by the learned
District Judge. He has used multiplier of 35 and has
capitalized the net income to arrive at the amount of
compensation payable. This approach is
impermissible. In land acquisition cases, the value of
the acquired land wherein fruit bearing trees are
grown has been determined normally by applying 10
multiplier. The Apex Court in the matter of STATE
OF HARYANA Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH AND
ANOTHER - 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637 has held that
when the market value of agricultural land is
determined on the basis of the yield, then necessarily
suitable multiplier deserved to be applied to award
reasonable compensation. But under no
circumstances, the Court should allow the
compensation on the basis of the nature of land and
as well as fruit bearing tree. In other words, the
market value of the land cannot be determined twice
over, once on the basis of the value of the land and
again on the basis of the yield secured from the fruit
bearing tree, which is impermissible. It is further laid
down that once the compensation is determined on
the basis of the value of the land, as distinct from the
income applying suitable multiplier, then the trees
would be valued and necessary compensation should
be given. In the said case, the Apex Court has ruled
WP 40537/2013
13
that when the market value is determined on the
basis of the yield from the tree or a plantation, 8
years multiplier shall be appropriate multiplier. For
agricultural land, 12 years multiplier has been held to
be suitable multiplier.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
Kerala State Electricity Board vs C.P. Sivasankara Menon on 29 July, 2008
"16. Now coming to the method to be adopted
for valuing fruit bearing tree, the learned District
Judge has taken the economic lifespan of the tree as
35 years and has multiplied the net amount derived
as income from the tree by capitalising the income
using 35 as multiplier. The Apex Court in the case of
WP 40537/2013
7
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs.
C.P.SIVASANKARA MENON - 2009 AIR SCW 388,
while referring to the earlier decision in KERALA
STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. LIVISHA AND
OTHERS -(2007) 6 SCC 792 has held that
compensation payable to the land owners based on
the yield from the tree ought to have been worked out
by applying appropriate multiplier as was done in the
case of STATE OF HARYANA Vs. GURCHARAN
SINGH AND ANOTHER - 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637
and therefore remitted the matter for fresh
consideration to the competent Court in respect of a
similar matter arising from the State of Kerala.
The Electricity Act, 2003
Komath Kumba Amma And Ors. vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 17 November, 1999
In KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs.
LIVISHA AND OTHERS -(2007) 6 SCC 792, the Apex
Court while considering the determination of
compensation made based on the Judgment of Five
Judges Bench of Kerala High Court in the matter of
KOMATH KUMBA AMMA & OTHERS Vs. KERALA
STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - 2000(1) KLT 542
(FB) wherein it was held that the annuity thereof
shall be calculated on the basis of 5% return and
fixing the rate of diminution in the market value of
the land at 50%, after referring to various Judgments
rendered by the High Court of Kerala at different
points of time taking different view in the matter, has
observed in Paragraph 7 that the amount of
compensation payable has to be determined keeping
in view the purpose and object of the statute, there
cannot be any fixed formula therefore or the other.