THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus B. SREEKUMARI

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 71 · Decided: 14-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R 71 
THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 
v. 
B. SREEKUMARI 
(Civil Appeal No. 1994 of 2008) 
MARCH 14, 2008 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Compensation - Electricity line drawn over the property 
A 
B 
of claimant - Compensation for diminishing value of the 
property -
Enhanced by trial Court -
Revision petition c 
dismissed by High Court - Correctness of - Held: In view of 
law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Kera/a State 
Electricity Board vs. Livisha, matter remitted to High Court 
for determination of the issues afresh. 
Appellant had drawn electricity line passing over the D 
property of respondent, thereby diminishing its value. Trial 
Court enhanced the compensation ordered by the 
authorities for the alleged loss suffered by her. Revision 
petition filed thereagainst by the Electricity Board was 
dismissed by the High Court relying upon the Full Bench 
E 
decision of the Kerala High Court in Kamba Amma vs. 
KSEB. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-Board contended that the High Court's 
judgment is clearly unsustainable as the Full Bench 
decision in Kamba Amma's case was set aside by this 
F 
Court in The Kera/a State Electricity Board v. Livisha etc. etc. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Following the view expressed by this Court 
in the case of Kera/a State Electricity Board v. Livisha etc. G 
etc., the impugned order 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 the said decision. 
(Para - 5) [74-B, C] 
71 
H 
72 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
The Kera/a State Electricity Board v. Livisha etc. etc. 
(2007) 6 sec 792 - relied on. 
Kamba Amma vs. E. S.E.B. (2003) 1 KLT 542 - referred 
to. 
B 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1994 
of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 08.03.2006 of 
the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRP No. 151 of 2006. 
c 
M.T. George for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the~ Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in tbis appeal is to the judgment of a learned 
D Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissing the Civil 
Revision Petition filed by the appellant-the Kerala State 
Electricity Board (in short the 'Board'). Challenge in the Civil 
Revision was to the order passed by Learned Additional District 
No. 1 Mavelikara granting the enhanced compensation for 
E alleged loss suffered by the respondent (hereinafter referred to 
as the 'claimant') on account of drawal of electricity line over 
her property. The dispute related to the compensation awarded 
for diminution in land valui3 and the grant of interest. Relying on 
a full Bench decision on a Kerala High Court in Kumba Amma 
F v. K.S.E.B. [2002 (1) KLT 542], the High Court dismissed the 
Civil Revision Petition. 
3. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the 
appellant-Board submitted that the High Court's judgment is 
clearly unsustainable as the Full Bench decision in Kamba 
G Amma's case (supra) was set aside by this court in The Kera/a 
State Electricity Board v. Livisha etc. etc.[2007(6) SCC 792) 
by the common judgmen~ 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 
H 
THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. 
73 
' 
B. SREEKUMARI [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
> 
fresh consideration. It was inter-alia observed as follows: 
A 
"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 B 
_, 
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 c 
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. We may, 
incidentally, refer to a recent decision of this Court in Land D 
Acquisition Officer v. Kamadana Ramakrishna Raofd 
.. 
wherein claim on yield basis has been held to be relevant 
for determining the amount of compensation payable under 
the Land Acquisition

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.