KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. E. GANGADHARAN and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Harun-ul-Rashid
V. Giri
Judgment Date: 2008-12-19
Court Decision / Holding: Remit to lower court for fresh determination after affording opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence, applying the Supreme Court principles on yield-based compensation.
Final Disposition: Remanded to the District Court for fresh consideration

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (KSEB), rep. by its Chairman, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram

Respondents

E. Gangadharan (died) S/o Krishnan Nair, aged 50; Edakkuttipurath House, Ulloor, Koyilandi, Kozhikode
Suppl. Ramani, W/o Gangadharan, aged 44
Anoop, S/o Gangadharan, aged 21
Amrutha, D/o Gangadharan, aged 16
Madhavikutty Amma, W/o Krishnan Nair, aged 79

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, Senior Counsel for KSEB

Counsels for Respondents

• M.P. Mohammed Aslam for R1 to R4

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Civil Revision Petition arises from O.P. 441/2000 before the District Court, Kozhikode. The petitioner, Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), seeks redetermination of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, relying on the Supreme Court decision in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007(3) KLT 1(SC)). The revision argues that the yield-based approach and appropriate multipliers must govern compensation, as repeated in several SC decisions cited in the order. The Supreme Court's view, as summarized in paragraphs 11-12, emphasizes that compensation for fruit-bearing trees depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and that yield-based calculation has to be applied in line with the authorities cited (Kamandana Ramakrishna Rao, Kapur Singh Mistry, State of Haryana v. Gurucharan Singh, Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy). The District Court, Kozhikode, is urged to reconsider the value by applying yield from trees and not to rely on an 18 multiplier, which the revision contends is erroneous. The court notes the need to allow both sides to adduce additional evidence in support of their positions. Accordingly, the order under challenge is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner urged reconsideration of the compensation in light of the Supreme Court decision in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007) and requested an opportunity to adduce additional evidence to substantiate its contentions, arguing that yield-based computation and relevant multipliers should be applied, following the cited authorities.

Contentions of Respondents

The document records no detailed counter-arguments from the respondents in this excerpt; however, it directs that both sides be afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence to establish proper compensation in accordance with the Supreme Court principles.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
K.S.E.B. v. Livisha	2007(3) KLT 1(SC)	Positive	Cited as authority for yield-based compensation and the need to follow Supreme Court principles.
Land Acquisition Officer, A.P. v. Kamandana Ramakrishna Rao & Anr.	2007 AIR SCW 1145	Positive	Support for yield-based determinant of compensation.
Kapur Singh Mistry v. Financial Commission & Revenue Secretary to Govt. of Punjab & Ors.	1995 Supp.(2) SCC 635	Positive	Cited as part of the principle supporting yield-based approach.
State of Haryana v. Gurucharan Singh & Anr.	1995 Supp.(2) SCC 637	Positive	Part of the line of cases endorsing yield-based compensation.
Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy & Ors.	2002) 3 SCC 527	Positive	Used to illustrate the yield-based approach and the eight-year multiplier standard, as supported by Gurucharan Singh.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 CRP.No. 889 of 2006() --------------------OP.441/2000 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, KOZHIKODE .................... ## REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB ## RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------ 1. E.GANGADHARAN (DIED), S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 50 YEARS, EDAKKUTTIAPURATH HOUSE, PO ULLOR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. 2. SUPPL. RAMANI, W/O.GANGADHARAN, AGED 44 YEARS. 3. ANOOP, S/O.GANGADHARAN, AGED 21 YEARS. 4. AMRUTHA, D/O.GANGADHARAN, AGED 16 YEARS. 5. MADHAVIKUTTY AMMA, W/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 79 YEARS. ADV. SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM FOR R1TO4 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------C.R.P No.889 of 2006 -------------------------Dated this the 19[th ] December, 2008** ## **O R D E R** This revision petition arises out of O.P.No.441 of 2000 on the file of the District Court, Kozhikode. The revision petitioner relying on the decision reported in **K.S.E.B. v.. Livisha, 2007(3) K.L.T. 1(SC)** requests the 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** **C.R.P No.889 of 2006** **2** 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 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. Counsel for the petitioner 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 **C.R.P No.889 of 2006** **3** 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 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. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. ## **(HARUN-UL-RASHID,JUDGE)** ma **4** ## **C.R.P No.889 of 2006** **(HAURN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)** ma **O R D E R** **12th December,** **2008** **5** ## **C.R.P No.889 of 2006** **(V.GIRI,JUDGE)** ma ## **C.R.P No.889 of 2006** **6** ## **C.R.P No.889 of 2006** **7**