Kerala High Court
The Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs Muralidharan Nair on 8 November, 2024
2024:KER:83885
CRP Nos.726/2019, 412/2018
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946
CRP NO. 726 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2017 IN OP(ELE) NO.87 OF 2011
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030
BY ADV ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT 2:
1 MURALIDHARAN NAIR
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O.K THANGAPPAN PILLAI, KUZHIKKATTIL (KUUZHYKKATTIL)
HOSUE, ALLAPRA AREA, ALLAPRA.P.O, VENGOLA VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, PIN-683556
2 SPECIAL THASILDHAR(LA)
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE-673017
2024:KER:83885
CRP Nos.726/2019, 412/2018
-2-
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RENJITH
SRI.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD)
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SRI. T. JAYAN
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.11.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.412/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:83885
CRP Nos.726/2019, 412/2018
-3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946
CRP NO. 412 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2017 IN OP(ELE) NO.87 OF 2011
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
MURALIDHARAN NAIR
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. K. THANGAPPAN PILLAI,
KUZHIKKATTIL (KUZHYKKATTIL) HOUSE, ALLAPRA P.O,
VENGOLA VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, PERUMBAVOOR
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RENJITH
SRI.P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM
COLONY,KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682 030.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
(LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA
2024:KER:83885
CRP Nos.726/2019, 412/2018
-4-
LTD.CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-17
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SRI. T. JAYAN. ADV ROJO J. THURUTHIPARA
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.11.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.726/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:83885
CRP Nos.726/2019, 412/2018
-5-
O R D E R
(Dated this the 8th day of November 2024) [CRP Nos.726/2019, 412/2018] CRP No.726/2019 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 1 st respondent/claimant, consequent upon the drawing of 400 KV electric lines across his property by the Corporation.
2. The facts of the case are follows; In order to facilitate the drawing of lines for the smooth transmission of power, a large number of trees were cut from the 1 st respondent's 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 property. In spite of the huge loss suffered, a meager amount was paid to the 1 st 2024:KER:83885 CRP Nos.726/2019, 412/2018 -6- respondent as compensation. Hence, the original petition was filed, seeking enhanced compensation.
3. The 1st respondent claimed Rs.1,50,00,000/- towards the diminution and the utility of the land and the value of the trees cut and removed from the property. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Trial Court has assessed the loss sustained due to the cutting of yielding trees by assessing the average number of yields per year and multiplying it with the value of one, after deducting the immature falling and expenses. For determining the compensation amount payable, the trial court, relying on the decision reported in KSEB v. Livisha, ( 2007 ) 6 SCC 792 applied 8 as the multiplier. For some other trees, compensation was fixed based on the value of trees.
4. Thus, the compensation fixed for different trees is shown as in the table mentioned below:
2024:KER:83885 CRP Nos.726/2019, 412/2018 -7- Type of Trees Nos. Compensation arrived with calculation (in Rs.) Rubber Trees 261 Rs.40,71,600/-
(261 x 13kg x 200 x 8 = Rs.54,28,800/- less 25% to be deducted towards expenditure.) Other trees Rs.3000/-
Total Rs.40,74,600/-
5. In para. 10 of the decision reported in KSEB (Supra) it was held that;
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.
6. As per B25 fair value notification, the value of the property in Sy. No.416/8 is Rs.1,00,000/- per Are. The Commissioner 2024:KER:83885 CRP Nos.726/2019, 412/2018 -8- opined that the value is Rs.3,00,000/-. The Trial Court fixed the value at Rs.2,00,000/-. Total 98.43 cents of property was injuriously affected, thus the total value of land injuriously affected is Rs.1,96,86,000/- (98.43 x 2,00,000). The percentage of diminution of land value is taken as 50%, so the value of land injuriously affected is Rs.98,43,000/-.
7. The Trial Court awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,39,17,600/-. The 1st respondent has already received an amount of Rs.11,22,448/- towards compensation. Therefore, the balance compensation payable is Rs.1,27,95,152/- rounded to Rs.1,27,95,200/- with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of cutting of trees till the date of realisation. Being so, this Court finds the procedure adopted by the Trial Court to be just and proper.
On going through the impugned order, it is seen that the compensation fixed for the injurious affection of land and the value fixed for the trees cut and removed is just and proper; therefore, CRP No.726/2019 fails and is dismissed.
2024:KER:83885 CRP Nos.726/2019, 412/2018 -9- CRP No.412/2018 CRP No.412/2018 is filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation.
I have gone through the impugned judgment, and I am of the opinion that the amount of compensation granted is adequate and reasonable.
Therefore, CRP No.412/2018 is dismissed.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI JUDGE JS