Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs K.J.Mathews

Kerala High Court

Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs K.J.Mathews on 22 May, 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
 WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2024 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1946
                     CRP NO. 680 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OP NO.160 OF 2010 OF
          ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

          POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
          REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL GENERAL
          MANAGER,UGRAPURAM, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM
          DISTRICT.
          BY ADV SRI.E.M.MURUGAN


RESPONDENT/S:

          K.J.MATHEWS
          S/O.JACOB, KIZHAKKEKUNNATH HOUSE,P.O.PUTHUPPADI,
          PUTHUPPADI VILLAGE,KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE
          DISTRICT-673 02.
          BY ADVS.
          V.V.SURENDRAN
          P.A.HARISH
          PAUL MATHEW
          ANUSREE.C


     THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.03.2024, THE COURT ON   22.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP No.680 of 2018


                                   -2-




                                 ORDER

Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2024 The revision petitioner, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd ('the Corporation' for short), is aggrieved by the enhanced compensation ordered to be paid to the respondent towards diminution in land value, consequent upon the drawing of 400 KV electric lines across his property by the Corporation. The essential facts are as under;

The respondent is in ownership and possession of landed property having a total extent of 70 cents in Puthuppadi Village of Kozhikode Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. In order to facilitate drawing of 400 KV electric lines for the smooth transmission of power in the Mysore-Kozhikode sector, large number of trees were cut from the CRP No.680 of 2018 -3- property. According to the respondent, the drawing of high tension lines had rendered the land underneath and adjacent useless, resulting in diminution of the land value. In spite of the huge loss suffered by the respondent, only small amount was granted as compensation. Hence, respondent filed the original petition, seeking enhanced compensation towards the value of trees cut and diminution in land value.

2. Thereafter, being dissatisfied with the enhancement of compensation awarded by the court below, respondent preferred civil revision petition and the same was allowed by this Court and the case remanded back with a direction to determine yield from each tree and to consider all components of diminution in land value including prevailing market price of the land.

3. After remand, the respondent filed a statement before the court below clarifying that he is not claiming additional compensation for loss in value of improvements. Hence, the court CRP No.680 of 2018 -4- below considered the claim for enhanced compensation towards diminution in land value alone and passed the impugned order.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted before the court below that the petition schedule property is situated in a highly potential area having all civic facilities. As the electric lines were drawn across the middle of the property, the land value has diminished considerably. The court below fixed the land value and the percentage of diminution without considering these vital factors. The properties involved in Exts.A6 and A9 documents were pointed out as comparable lands and prayer made to enhance the compensation accordingly.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Corporation argued that the compensation was assessed on the basis of scientific methods approved by the State Government and the respondent had received the said compensation CRP No.680 of 2018 -5- without objection. It is further submitted that the respondent is not entitled to the benefits under the Land Acquisition Act and hence, any enhancement, based on the factors mentioned in that Act, will be illegal.

6. Although respondent relied on Exts.A6 and A9 documents, the court below refused to accept the properties involved in the said documents as comparable lands. It was found that while properties directly abut the PWD road and the transactions are commercial in nature, the petition schedule property is a residential compound situated at a distance of 75 metres from NH-212 and abuts the Puthiyangadi-Kannappankundu Panchayat Road on the east. The court below also took note of the fact that 54 cents out of the total extent of 70 cents is affected due to drawing of the electric lines. Based on the above factors and the locational features of the property, the court below fixed the land value at Rs.35,000/- per cent, as against Rs.15,000/- per CRP No.680 of 2018 -6- cent fixed earlier. As the respondent's house was situated in the portion covered by the electric lines, the court below fixed the percentage of diminution at 40% of the land value. A table containing the compensation thus awarded is appended below;

     Sl    Case     Affected        Land   Percentage   Compensation Compensation   Balance
     No    No.       area          value       of          payable       paid     Compensation
                                     per   diminution                                 due
                                    cent
     1    OP            54     35,000 40%                7,56,000       3,24,000        4,32,000
          160/10


In        view         of      the         decision          of        this        Court       in

P.Raghavan v. KSEB [CRP No.3256 of 2001], the interest on the additional compensation was directed to be paid at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of cutting of trees till the date of payment.

7. Heard learned Counsel appearing on either side.

8. On careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the compensation due towards diminution in land value was fixed based on factors like situs of the land, the extent to CRP No.680 of 2018 -7- which the land is adversely affected and consequent diminution in the value of the land, as laid down by the Apex Court in KSEB v. Livisha [(2007) 6 SCC 792]. Similarly, the discretion vested with the court was properly exercised by granting 40% of the land value as compensation for the land affected due to the drawing of electric lines.

9. The contention of the Corporation that the Government having fixed the fair value, the court below could not have fixed a higher value is liable to be rejected since, while assessing the damage sustained and fixing the compensation, the court is not bound by the guidelines/orders issued by the Government. The contention that the court below committed an illegality in awarding 12% interest cannot also be sustained in the light of the decision of this Court in P.Raghavan (supra). As such, there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, CRP No.680 of 2018 -8- warranting intervention by this Court in exercise of the revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

For the aforementioned reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/