Kerala High Court
Abdul Khadhar vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited on 11 April, 2024
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
CRP NO. 473 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OP NO.84 OF 2014 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
ABDUL KHADAR
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. POTHATTIL ABDURAHIMAN MUSLIYAR POTHATTIL
HOUSE P.O. PURUMPALLI, ENGAPUZHA VILLAGE
KOZHIKODE. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER, ABOOBACKER, S/O. AHAMMED KUTTY HAJI,
RESIDING AT KAKKATTUMMAL HOUSE, P.O.,
KATTIPPARA, THAMARASSERY KOZHIKODE 673 615.
BY ADVS.
AVM.SALAHUDIN
SMT.EMIL STANLEY
SMT.APARNA UDAYAKUMAR
SMT.A.D.DIVYA
RESPONDENT/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANGER, SOUTHERN
REGION, AREEKODE P.O., UGRAPURAM KOZHIKODE 673
639.
BY ADV SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 07.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.512/2019, 511/2019
AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 11.04.2024 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.473, 511, 512 & 513/2019
-2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
CRP NO. 512 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2015 IN OP NO.87
OF 2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
ABDUL KHADHAR
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.POTHATTIL ABDURAHIMAN MUSLIYAR, POTHATTIL
HOUSE, P.O.PURUMPALLI, ENGAPUZHA VILALGE,
KOZHIKODE. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER, ABOOBACKER, S/O.AHAMMED KUTTY HAJI,
RESIDING AT KAKKATTUMMAL HOUSE P.O., KATTIPPARA,
THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE-673 615.
BY ADVS.
AVM.SALAHUDIN
SMT.A.D.DIVYA
SMT.EMIL STANLEY
RESPONDENT/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN
REGION, AREEKODE, P.O.UGRAPURAM, KOZHIKODE-673
639.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 07.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.512/2019, 511/2019
AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 11.04.2024 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.473, 511, 512 & 513/2019
-3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
CRP NO. 511 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2015 IN OP NO.85
OF 2014 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
ABDUL KHADHAR,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. POTHATTIL ABDURAHIMAN MUSLIYAR, POTHATTIL
HOUSE P.O., PURUMPALLI, ENGAPUZHA VILLAGE,
KOZHIKODE. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER, ABOOBACKER, S/O. AHAMMED KUTTY HAJI,
RESIDING AT KAKKATTUMMAL HOUSE, P.O.,
KATTIPPARA, THAMARASSERY KOZHIKODE 673 615.
BY ADVS.
AVM.SALAHUDIN
SMT.A.D.DIVYA
EMIL STANLEY
RESPONDENT/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANGER, SOUTHERN
REGION, AREEKODE P.O., UGRAPURAM, KOZHIKODE 673
639.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 07.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.473/2019 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 11.04.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.473, 511, 512 & 513/2019
-4-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
CRP NO. 513 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2015 IN OP NO.86
OF 2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
ABDUL KHADHAR
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.POTHATTIL ABDUYRAHIMAN MUSLIYAR, POTHATTIL
HOUSE, P.O.PURUMPALLI, ENGAPUZHA VILLAGE,
KOZHIKODE. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER, ABOOBACKER, S/O.AHAMMED KUTTY HAJHI,
RESIDING AT KAKKATTUMMAL HOUSE, P.O.KATTIPPARA,
THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE-673 615.
BY ADVS.
AVM.SALAHUDIN
SMT.A.D.DIVYA
SMT.EMIL STANLEY
RESPONDENT/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN
REGION, AREEKODE, P.O.UGRAPURAM, KOZHIKODE-673
639.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.473/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 11.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.473, 511, 512 & 513/2019
-5-
ORDER
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024 These revision petitions are filed challenging the common order passed by the Additional District Judge-I, Kozhikode in O.P. (Electricity) Nos.84 to 87 of 2014. The original petitions were filed by the revision petitioner being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded towards the damage and loss sustained due to the drawing of 400 KV lines across his property by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd (hereinafter called 'the Corporation'). The essential facts are as under;
The petitioner is in ownership and possession of 2.48 Acres of land comprised in Puthuppady Village of Kozhikode Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the petitioner, to facilitate drawing of the lines and smooth transmission of CRP Nos.473, 511, 512 & 513/2019 -6- power by the Corporation, large number of trees were cut from his property. The drawing of high tension lines rendered the land underneath and adjacent to the lines useless, resulting in diminution of the value of the land. In spite of the huge loss suffered by the petitioner, only meager amount was paid as compensation towards the value of trees cut and no compensation was granted for diminution in land value. Hence, the original petitions were filed, seeking enhanced compensation under both heads.
2. Even though the court below awarded enhanced compensation for the loss sustained due to the cutting of trees as well as diminution in land value, the petitioner being not satisfied with the quantum of enhancement has filed these revision petitions.
3. Heard Adv.A.V.M.Salahuddeen for the petitioner and Adv.Millu Dandapani for the Corporation.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner CRP Nos.473, 511, 512 & 513/2019 -7- contended that the court below committed gross illegality in fixing the land value at Rs.30,000/- per cent and granting only 10% of the land value as compensation for diminution of land value. It is contended that in spite of the Advocate Commissioner having reported the land value to be Rs.70,000/- per cent, the court below unilaterally fixed the land value at Rs.30,000/- based on guess work. Relying on the decision in KSEB v. Livisha [(2007) 6 SCC 792], it is contended that, the court below ought to have considered relevant factors like situs of the land, distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon etc. for fixing the compensation. As none of these factors were taken into consideration, the impugned common order is liable to be interfered with.
5. Learned Counsel for the Corporation contended that, compensation towards diminution in land value granted is reasonable and in the CRP Nos.473, 511, 512 & 513/2019 -8- absence of material evidence, court had no option but to fix the land value based on the guess work. Hence, the order warrants no interference.
6. As far as the claim for diminution of land value in cases of this nature is concerned, the factors to be taken into consideration, as laid down in Livisha (supra) are as under;
"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."
On careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the land value is fixed based only on guess work. It is true that even the petitioner did not enter the box and apart from CRP Nos.473, 511, 512 & 513/2019 -9- Commissioner's report, there is no material to substantiate the claim for compensation towards diminution of land value. Even if so, the fact that 99.60 cents of the petitioner's land was affected by the drawing of high tension lines and the lines cut across the petitioner's property, thereby affecting its utility substantially ought to have been taken into consideration. No doubt, some elements of discretion is involved in assessing the loss and fixing the compensation. Even if so, exercise of such discretion should be based on relevant factors. Unfortunately, none of the relevant factors as highlighted in Livisha (supra) is seen taken into consideration. This has resulted the court unilaterally fixing Rs.30,000/- per cent as land value and granted only 10% of the compensation towards injurious affection. The said procedure, in my considered opinion, has meted out injustice to the petitioner. Being so, the impugned common order CRP Nos.473, 511, 512 & 513/2019 -10- is liable to be set aside.
For the aforementioned reasons, the civil revision petitions are allowed. The impugned common order is set aside and the matters remanded to the court below for fresh consideration. The original petitions being of the year 2014, fresh orders shall be passed within four months of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/