LexTHE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus CHINAMMA ANTONY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 1008 *" A THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. CHINAMMA ANTONY (Civil Appeal No. 4381 of 2008) JULY 15, 2008 '! I B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.] Compensation - For diminution of land value on account of electricity line - Enhanced by District Judge - Revision pe- c titian dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: The com- pensation need to be determined keeping in view the prin"'. ciples laid down in the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court - Matter remitted to High Court. Respondent was awarded comp1ensation for diminu- -.\. .. D tion in land value on account of drawal of electricity line over her property. District Judge enhanced the compen- sation for the alleged loss. High Court dismissed the revi- , sion petition. Hence the present appeal. E Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court HELD: 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 tra1~t of land or through ... F , _ the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors would be determinative for award o,f compensation. The value of the land would also be a relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, in a. given situation may G lose his substantive right to use the property for the pur- pose for which the same was meant to be used. So far as the compensation in relation to fruit-bearing trees are +:~· concerned the same would also de~pend upon the facts and Circumstances of each case. The matter needs to be H 1008 ~t THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. 1009 CHINAMMAANTONY [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J] decided in view of the above principles. [Paras 3 and 5] A [1010 A-C; 1011-C] The Kera/a State Electricity Board v. Livisha etc. -y etc. 2007(6) SCC 792; The Kera/a State Electricity Board v. B. Sreekumari 2008 (5) SCC 398 - relied on. B CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4381 of 2008 From the Judgment and final Order dated 16/11/2005 of the High Court of Kera la at Ernakulam in C.R.P. No. 960 of 2005 c M.T. George for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by " . Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J 1. Leave granted. f 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned D Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissing the Civil Revi- sion 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 Learn~d Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha, granting the enhanced compensation for alleged loss suffered by E the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant') on ac- count of drawal of electricity line over her property. The dispute related to the compensation awarded for diminution in land value > and the grant of interest. Relying on a full Bench decision on a ~ Kerala High Court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B. [2002 (1) KLT F 542], the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. 3. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appel- lant-Board submitted that the High Court's judgment is clearly unsustainable as the Full Bench decision in Kamba Amma's \ case (supra) was set aside by this court in The Kera/a State G ~--,..;- Electricity Board v. Livisha etc. etc.[2007(6) SCC 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: H '· 1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 10 S.C.R. 't-" A "10. The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line ' -::._ I thereon as also the fact as to whether the hi~Jh voltage line passes over a small tract of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion 1- B would be determinative. The value of the land would also . t 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 11. So far as the compensation in relation to fruit-bearing r trees are concerned the same would also depend upon - the facts and circumstances of each case. We may, incidentally,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.