High CourtDivision Bench2008-07-29Appeals allowed; remitted to High Court for fre...

Kerala State Electricity Board v. C.P. Sivasankara Menon

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 4702 of 2008

Neutral Citation:[2008] 11 S.C.R. 431

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
Judgment Date: 2008-07-29
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals allowed; High Court to reconsider afresh in light of yield-based principles and the Livisha line of authorities; remitted for fresh determination; no order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeals allowed; remitted to High Court for fresh consideration; no order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Kerala State Electricity Board

Respondents

C. P. Sivasankara Menon

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M. T. George

Case Synopsis & Summary

These appeals concern compensation for the yield of fruit-bearing trees affected by the Kerala State Electricity Board’s 220 kV line project. The Board contends that the High Court misunderstood or misapplied the governing law for determining compensation, particularly with respect to valuing yields from trees and the appropriate multiplier, and that the matter requires fresh adjudication. The High Court had disposed of Civil Revision Petitions based on an earlier Kerala High Court decision (Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B.), which the Supreme Court later overruled in Livisha and related decisions, remitting the matter for fresh consideration. The core issue is whether compensation should be computed on the basis of tree yields, the surrounding land’s situs, and the effect of the line’s location on the owner’s use of land. The Court reiterates that the value of fruit trees and future yield depend on facts and circumstances, and aligns with yield-based valuation as reflected in Livisha and subsequent authorities; it cites airports and land-acquisition precedents to support the yield-based approach. The Court sets aside the High Court’s judgments and remands the cases for fresh merit-based consideration, applying the yield-based method and appropriate multiplier, with costs in the discretion of the High Court. The final orders are to be issued after fresh adjudication, with no costs awarded at this stage.

Provisions of Law Cited

Land Acquisition Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The Kerala State Electricity Board submits that the High Court’s view is not correct. It contends that the determination of compensation must reflect the yield from fruit-bearing trees and the impact of the 220 kV line, taking into account the situs of the land, distance of the line, and the possibility that the line passes through the middle of land, which affects the owner’s ability to use the property for its intended purpose. The Board relies on Livisha (The Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha) and other precedents to justify a yield-based approach with proper multipliers, asserting that the High Court failed to apply these principles and that fresh consideration is required.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (C.P. Sivasankara Menon) challenged the quantum of compensation and sought an enhanced award based on the value of tree yields, future yield, and interest. They argued the prior awards did not adequately reflect the yield-based approach and the implications of the line’s location on land use. However, the respondents did not appear in person at the hearings (no appearance recorded), though service of notice was effected. The core contention is that compensation should be guided by yield-based valuation in line with recognized precedents, and that the High Court’s orders warrant modification in favor of higher compensation.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
The Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha et al.	2007 (6) SCC 792	Positive	The Court followed the Livisha decision in setting aside the High Court’s order and remanding for fresh consideration with yield-based valuation.
Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B.	2000 (1) KLT 542	Overruled	The Full Bench decision was set aside by this Court in Livisha; thus it is overruled in the present context.
Land Acquisition Officer v. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao	2007 (3) SCC 526	Positive	Cited to support yield-based valuation for compensation under the Land Acquisition framework.
Kapur Singh Mistri v. Financial Commissioner & Revenue Secy. to Govt. of Punjab	1995 Supp. (2) SCC 635	Positive	Cited for principles related to yield-based compensation.
State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh	1995 Supp. (2) SCC 637	Positive	Cited for yield-based valuation principles.
Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy	2002 (3) SCC 527	Positive	Cited for relevance of yield-based compensation; used to reinforce the principle.

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 Kerala State Electricity Board v. C.P. Sivasankara Menon and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 11S.C.R.431 ## KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD A _v._ C.P. SIVASANKARA MENON (Civil Appeal No.4 702 of 2008) JULY 29, 2008 B [DR. ARIJLT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SH~RMA, JJ.] _Compensation:_ _Compensation for fruit bearing trees_ - _Computation of_ - _Matter remitted to High Court for fresf] consideration keeping in view the principles.set out by Supreme Court._ C ' The instant appeals relate to compensation for valuation of yield-of fruit bearing trees cut by the appellant State Electricity Board. It was contended for the appelD lant that the relevant position in law was not kept in view_ - by the High Court. ## Allowing the appeals, the Court > HELD: Following the view expressed by this Court E in Livisha's case* the oraer of the High Court is set aside > and the matter is remitted to it for fresh consideration > keeping in view the principles set out in th~said decision. [Para 6] [434-D] ## Qase Law Reference F / _The Kera/a State Electricity Board v. Uvisha etc. etc._ (2007) 7 SCR 356 = 2007(6) SCC 792 followed. [Para 4] - ' _Kumba Amma v._ K.SE.8~ 2000 (1) KLT 542 cited. [Para 4] CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4702 G of 2008 . ~- ... 4- From the final JudgmeoW!Jld Order dated 6/1/2006 of the High Court of Kerala at Eranakulam in CRP No. 434 of 2001'-' ~1 H SUPREME COURT REPORTS 432 [2008] 11 S.C.R. A WITH C.A. No. 4703/2008 M.T. Georg~ for the Appellant. B The Judgment of the Court.was delivered by D_r. ARIJIT_.P~SAYATJ J. )- S.L.P.(C) No.12436 and S.L.P.''(C) No. 12438 of 2006 1. Leave granted. C· 2. Challenge in these appeals in each case is to the judgm_ent of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court ·dismissing the Civil "Revision Petition filed·by:the .appellant. ln·the civil _revision, petitipn, ch~llenge w~s to the order passed by leafoed AdditlonaJ Di~trict JUdge·, No~h ~~ravur, \n O.P. (E!ec,. D trlcity) N0':40/199"6 and 43/96. Several revision pefitions were dis.posed of on the basis of an earlier decision cit the High C~ourt in 'cR'P No:5o7 _ot'_ 2061 by order dated'03.12}0_04-, . · ;;; .. 3. It is submitted by.learned coun.sel for the appellant that the view of the High C,,urt is not correct The appell~nt-Board . E cut down certain yieldrng rubber trees, 1·9 coconut trees, peppet'vines; areci:niuttrees' and mango trees for the purpose· of la'ying' down 220 kV electric line. The respondents were not satisfied·with the awarded amount as' determined for payment as compensation. O.P. No.40/1996 in on'e case anci 43/1996 F · in the other case were filed.before the Trial Court claiming additional compensation, which was allowed. The stand of the appellant'in.thls case is that the r,elev.ant position in law was not kept in vieiw by th~ High Court. The dispute rJiated to the com-· pehsatio~ awarcfed for"valuation of the yield of the trees and G · also.for the future age of the same and the grant of interest. ·.,. ' "" 4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant'.'.'.Board s.ubmitted that the High Court's judgment is clearly unsustainab"le as the Full Bench decision of Kerala High Court. H . in _Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B._ (2000 (1) KLT 542) was set aside ,,I...· KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD _v._ C.P. 433 SIVASANKARA MENON [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] by this Court in _The Kera/a State Electricity Board v. Livisha_ A _etc. etc._ [2007(6) sec 792) by the common judgment in Civil Appeal No. 289 of 2006 and other Civil Appeals. This Court set aside the impugned order in each case and remitted the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration. It was, inter-alia, observed as follows: B B "10. The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage _line_ passes over a small tract 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. C D 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. We may, incidentally, refer to a recent decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao (2007 (3) sec 526) 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 Mistri v. Financial Commr. & Revenue Secy. to Govt. of Punjab (1995 Supp. (2) SCC 635), State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh (1995 Supp. (2) SCC 637), para 4 and Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy (2002 (3) SCC 527). In Airports Authority it was held: (SCC p. 533, para 14) E F G "14. Hence, in our view, there was no reason for the High Court not to follow the decision rendered by this Court in Gurcharan Singh case and determine the compensation payable to the respondents on the basis of the yield from the trees by applying 8 H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. 434 A years' multiplier. In this view of the matter, in our vLew, "- the High Court committed error apparent in awardjng compensation ad.opting the multiplier of 18." B c· 12. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court should consider the. matter afresh on the merit of each matter having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. The-impugned judgments, therefore, cannot be sustained . . These are set aside accordingly. The matters are remitted . ,., to the High _Gourt_ for consideration thereon afresh. The appeals are allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." ·5. Th.ere is no appearance on behalf of the respondents in each case though notice has been served. 6. Following the view.expressed by this Court in the deciD sions referred to above, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court in each case and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration keeping in view the principles set out in the decisi8n referred to above. · ... -- ·· · E _n_ . 6.The appeals are allowed without any ord~r.as to costs. R.P._ Appeals allowed.