Holding

Compensation for diminution of land value due to an electricity line must be determined based on the land’s situs, distance from and extent of the line, loss of use, market value, and yield of fruit‑bearing trees, applying the appropriate eight‑year multiplier, and the High Court’s order was set aside.

Summary

The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) installed a high‑voltage electricity line over the land of Chinamma Antony, resulting in a claim for compensation for diminution of land value. The Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation awarded, and the Kerala High Court dismissed the Board’s revision petition, upholding the enhanced award. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the principles governing compensation for land affected by utility lines, emphasizing factors such as the situs of the land, distance from the line, extent and position of the line, market value of the land, loss of substantive use, and the yield from fruit‑bearing trees. The Court held that the High Court erred by not applying the established multiplier of eight years for tree yield and by overlooking these factors, and therefore set aside the High Court’s order. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines, and the appeal was allowed without costs.

Issues considered

What factors must be considered in determining compensation for diminution of land value caused by the erection of a high‑voltage electricity line?
Whether the High Court correctly applied the multiplier for compensation based on the yield of fruit‑bearing trees?
Whether the High Court should follow the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions in KSEB v. Livisha and related cases in assessing compensation?
Whether the enhanced compensation awarded by the District Judge should be upheld?

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act

Subjects

compensationland valuationelectricity linediminution of land valuehigh voltage linefruit‑bearing treesyield multiplierLand Acquisition ActSupreme Courtremandsitusdistance

Judgment

[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.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High
E Court, the Court
HELD: The situs of the land, the distance between
the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent

F
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
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
lose his substantive right to use the property for the pur-
G
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.
etc. 2007(6) SCC 792; The Kera/a State Electricity Board v. B.
-y
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, refer to a recent decision of this Court in Land
Acquisition Officer v. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao -{,I
I
~
D (2007(3) sec 526) wherein claim on yield basis has been
held to be relevant for determining the amount of >
compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act; ·'
I
~
same principle has been reiterated in Kapur Singh Mistri
v. Financial Commr. & Revenue Secy to Govt. of Punjab .
4

E (1995 Supp(2) SCC 635), State ofHaryana v. Gurcharan
Singh (1995 Supp(2) SCC 637), para 4 and Airports
Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy (2002(3) SCC 527).
In Airports Authority's case (supra) it was held: (SCC p.
533, para 14) "-
}-
F "14. Hence, in our view, there was no reason for the High
Court not to follow the decision rendered by this Court in
Gurcharan Singh's case (supra) and determine the
compensation payable to the respondents on the basis of ~

the yield from the trees by applying 8 years' multiplier. In . ~

G this view of the matter, 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
H

'
. ,_ THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. 1011
CHINAMMAANTONY [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J]

matter having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. A
The impugned judgments, therefore, cannot be sustained.
These are set aside accordingly. The matters are remitted
to the High Court for consideration thereon afresh. The
--'f appeals are allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs. B
4. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent
though notice has been served.
5. Following the view expressed by this Court in the deci-
sion referred to above, and in The Kera/a State Electricity Board c
v. 8. Sreekumari (2008 (5) SCC 398), we set aside the im-
pugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for
fresh consideration keeping in view the principles set out in the
decisions referred to above.
;_
~
6. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs. D
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.