- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judg ment of a learned 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 Judge, Thodupuzha, granting the enhanced compensation for alleged loss suffered by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant') on account of drawal of electric ity line over her property. The dispute re lated to the compensation awarded for dimi nution in land value and the grant of inter est. Relying on a full Bench decision of a Kerala High Court in Kumba Amma v. K.S. E.B., 2002 (1) KLT 542, the High Court dismissed the Civil Revi sion Petition. AIR 2000 Ker 215
(3.) In support of the appeal learned coun sel for the appellant-Board submitted that the High Court's judgment is clearly unsus tainable as the Full Bench decision in Kamba Amma's case (supra) was set aside by this Court in The Kerala State 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 : 2007 AIR SCW 4104 "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. 11. So far as the compensation in rela tion to fruit bearing trees are concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. We may, inci dentally, refer to a recent decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao, 2007(3) SCC 526 wherein claim on yield basis has been held to be relevant for determining the amount of compensa tion payable under the Land Acquisition Act; same principle has been reiterated in Kapur Singh Mistri v. Financial Commr. and 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 Air ports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy, 2002 (3) SCC 527. In Airports Authority's case (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 (su pra) 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 mat ter, in our view, the High Court committed error apparent in awarding compensation adopting the multiplier of 18". 12. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court should consider the matter afresh on the merit of each matter haying regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. The impugned judgments, therefore, cannot be sustained. These are set aside accord ingly. The matters are remitted to the High Court for consideration thereon afresh. The appeals are allowed. In the facts and cir cumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.;