KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus C.P. SIVASANKARA MENON

Citation: [2008] 11 S.C.R. 431 · Decided: 29-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 11S.C.R.431 
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 
v. 
C.P. SIVASANKARA MENON 
(Civil Appeal No.4 702 of 2008) 
JULY 29, 2008 
[DR. ARIJLT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SH~RMA, JJ.] 
Compensation: 
A 
B 
Compensation for fruit bearing trees - Computation of -
C 
Matter remitted to High Court for fresf] consideration keeping 
in view the principles.set out by Supreme Court. 
' 
The instant appeals relate to compensation for valu-
ation of yield-of fruit bearing trees cut by the appellant 
State Electricity Board. It was contended for the appel-
D 
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 deci-
sion. [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 
432 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[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 judg-
m_ent of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court ·dis-
missing 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, pep-
pet'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 ad-
ditional 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 appel-
lant'.'.'.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 mat-
ter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration. It was, in-
ter-alia, observed as follows: 
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 
C 
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. 
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 
E 
Acquisition Officer v. Kama
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.