High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2012-02-15Petitions allowed; award set aside; matter rema...

C.R.P.No.430 of 2005 & C.R.P.No.907 of 2006

Case / Petition Number:C.R.P.No.430 of 2005; C.R.P.No.907 of 2006

Neutral Citation::null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K.T.Sankaran
Judgment Date: 2012-02-15
Court Decision / Holding: Civil Revision Petitions allowed; the award passed by the court below is set aside. The case shall be considered afresh by the trial court on all questions involved, with the parties to appear on 27 March 2012 for fresh proceedings and to adduce further evidence as needed.
Final Disposition: Petitions allowed; award set aside; matter remanded to the trial court for fresh determination on all issues, with appearance fixed for 27 March 2012.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

JOSEPH

Respondents

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.)
• SRI.S.SHARAN,SC,K.S.E.BOARD

Case Synopsis & Summary

These Civil Revision Petitions challenge an award in O.P.(Ele.) No.42 of 2002 before the Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha, in a dispute over compensation for land and trees affected by the drawing of a 66 KV power line from Moolamattom to Karimkunnam. The petitioner, Joseph, contends that the line was drawn through his property measuring 2.62 hectares, injuriously affecting about 1 acre of land and causing diminution in land value. He also states that 148 high-yielding rubber trees were felled and a tower erected on his property, details not adequately reflected in the court’s award. The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) claims the trial court’s award is devoid of calculations and proper details, and relies on earlier precedents suggesting yield-based computation and appropriate multipliers. The court below had enhanced compensation from Rs. 58,888 to Rs. 72,851 with 9% interest but did not record supporting calculations. Citing decisions such as KSEB v. Philip Antony and various Supreme Court authorities on yield-based valuation and the factors influencing compensation (including situs, extent of line, and land value), the High Court allowed the revisions, set aside the lower award, and remanded for fresh consideration on all issues. The matter was directed to reappear on 27 March 2012 before the trial court for a comprehensive re‑examination with opportunity for further evidence.

Provisions of Law Cited

null

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid there over, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small track of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion would be determinative. The value of the land would also be a relevant factor.
Yield basis for determining compensation can be relevant, as held in Kamandana Ramakrishna Rao & Anr. (Land Acquisition) and reiterated in related decisions; 8 years’ multiplier may be applied to yield-based calculations (Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy).
The 5% annuity factor approach (Kumba Amma v. KSEB) has been used in some awards but may be superseded by yield-based methods in appropriate cases.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Joseph asserts that the line drawn through his 2.62 hectare property injuriously affected about 1 acre, lowering land value; 148 high-yield rubber trees were felled and a tower erected on his land; the award by the trial court lacks explicit calculations, details of land extent affected, and a clear account of trees removed, and relies on a general yield-based framework (per Kumba Amma). He contends for proper quantification of diminution in value, considering yield from trees, site factors, and actual losses, and seeks higher compensation. He relies on yield-based valuation principles and related Supreme Court precedents to support a fairer assessment; he requests the matter be re‑evaluated with detailed computations and evidence.

Contentions of Respondents

KSEB argues that the lower court’s award lacks necessary calculations and details; it contends the judgment is devoid of calculation and method, citing the need to incorporate requisite details and to remand for reconsideration per prior decisions (e.g., KSEB v Philip Antony). While acknowledging yield-based considerations in principle, it maintains that the trial court must articulate the calculation method and evidence before determining compensation afresh. The Board supports remand to the trial court with explicit calculations and a clear methodology, and emphasizes following precedents that address situs, extent, and land value in arriving at an appropriate award.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
KSEB v. Philip Antony	2005 (3) ILR 280 (KSEB v Philip Antony)	Positive	Cited and applied to support remand and require detailed calculations.
Kumba Amma v. KSEB	2000 (1) KLT 542	Mentioned Only	Referenced as a precedent for using annuity factor; not adopted as sole basis for outcome.
Land Acquisition Officer, A.P. v. Kamandana Ramakrishna Rao & Anr.	2007 AIR SCW 1145	Positive	Authorities yield-based approach to determine compensation; cited to support yield-based calculations.
Kapur Singh Mistry v. Financial Commission & Revenue Secretary to Govt. of Punjab & Ors.	1995 Supp. (2) SCC 635	Mentioned Only	Part of the line of authorities on compensation principles; not the determinative basis here.
State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh & Anr.	1995 Supp. (2) SCC 637	Mentioned Only	Listed among authorities; not the decisive factor in this judgment.
Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy & Ors.	2002 (3) SCC 527	Positive	Supports the yield-based approach and 8-year multiplier for compensation.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against C.R.P.No.430 of 2005 & C.R.P.No.907 of 2006 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/26TH MAGHA 1933 CRP.No. 430 of 2005 ( ) ----------------------OP (ELE.)42/2002 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA REVISION PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JOSEPH, ARAPOOZHIKKARA HOUSE THALAYANADU KARA, ALAKKODE VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R BY SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) R BY SRI.S.SHARAN,SC,K.S.E.BOARD THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-02-2012 ALONG WITH C.R.P.NO.907/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **K.T.SANKARAN, J.** -------------------------------- ## C.R.P.No.430 of 2005 & C.R.P.No.907 of 2006 --------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of February, 2012 ## **O R D E R** These Civil Revision Petitions arises out of the same award in O.P.(Electricity) No.42 of 2002 on the file of the court of the Additional District Judge of Thodupuzha. C.R.P.No.430 of 2005 is filed by the claimant while C.R.P.No.907 of 2006 is filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board. 2. For drawing Moolamattom - Karimkunnam 66 KV line, lines were drawn through the property belonging to the claimant and trees were cut from that property. The Kerala State Electricity Board granted a compensation of ` 58,888/-. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, the claimant filed O.P.(Ele.) No.42 of 2002, claiming a compensation of ` 9,61,112/- under different heads. The C.R.P.No.430/2005 & C.R.P.No.907/2006 2 court below granted an enhanced compensation of ` 72,851/with interest at 9% per annum. Both parties challenge the award passed by the court below. 3. In the award passed by the court below, the relevant particulars are not mentioned. It is stated in the Civil Revision Petition filed by the claimant that the line was drawn through his property having an extent of 2.62 hectares and due to the drawal of the line, an extent of about 1 Acre of land was injuriously affected resulting in diminution of land value. It is also seen from the Civil Revision Petition filed by the claimant that the improvements from an area of 195 mtres x 25 mtres. were clear felled. It is also stated in the revision that a tower was erected in the property of the claimant. All the aforesaid details are wanting in the award passed by the court below. In the Civil Revision Petition filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board, ground No.6 reads as follows : “It may also be noted that, as per the decision reported in 2005 (3) ILR 280 (KSEB C.R.P.No.430/2005 & C.R.P.No.907/2006 3 vs. Philip Antony), the judgment of the court below is to be set aside and the matter remanded to the trial court for reconsideration, after incorporating requisite details with respect to the calculation and method adopted for arriving at a conclusion, since the judgment is devoid of any such calculations.” 4. The court below raised 8 points for consideration. Points 1 and 5 were whether the yield assessed by the respondent is low and whether the drawing of the line has diminished the value of the petitioner's land. These points were answered by the court below in paragraph 6 of the award which reads as follows : “6. Points 1 & 5 : To prove the facts pertaining to the above points the petitioner has not adduced or produced any evidence. Hence, these points are found against the petitioner.” C.R.P.No.430/2005 & C.R.P.No.907/2006 4 5. It is not clear from the award as to whether coconut trees or rubber trees or any other trees were cut from the property of the claimant. The claimant states in his revision that 148 high yielding rubber trees were cut from the property. The court below passed the award only on the basis of the decision in Kumba Amma vs. KSEB (2000 (1) KLT 542) taking 5% as annuity factor for fixing the compensation. 6. It is true that both sides did not adduce any oral evidence. That does not mean that with reference to the relevant materials, the court below could not arrive at a finding as to the reasonable compensation to be paid to the claimant. Even in the absence of any evidence, from the available materials, it could be ascertained whether the claimant has sustained any loss on account of diminution of land value as a result of the lines having been drawn through his property. 7. In K.S.E.B. v. Livisha ((2007) 6 SCC 792 = 2007(3) KLT 1 (SC)), the Supreme Court held thus: C.R.P.No.430/2005 & C.R.P.No.907/2006 5 “10. The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid there over, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small track of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion would be determinative. The value of the land would also be a relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, in a given situation may lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used. 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 C.R.P.No.430/2005 & C.R.P.No.907/2006 6 Mistry v. Financial Commission & Revenue Secretary to Govt. of Punjab & Ors. 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 635, State of Haryana v. Gurcharan 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.” In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the case should be considered by the court below afresh. It is also appropriate to grant an opportunity to both parties to adduce such other relevant evidence. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.430/2005 & C.R.P.No.907/2006 7 the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the award passed by the court below is set aside. The court below shall consider the case afresh on all the questions involved in the case. The parties shall appear before the court below on 27[th] March, 2012. **K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE** csl