Kerala High Court
Sulfikkar vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd on 4 June, 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
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRP NO. 296 OF 2014
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2013 IN OPELE
NO.252 OF 2005 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
SULFIKKAR
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL VAHEED,KANDAMCHIRA PUTHEN
VEEDU,THINKALKKARIKAM,PATHANAPURAM TALUK
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HIMA
RESIDING AT KANDAMCHIRA PUTHEN
VEEDU,THINKALKKARIKAM,PATHANAPURAM
BY ADV SRI.ARUN BABU
RESPONDENT/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
PONGUMOODU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOIR 695 001
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRP No.296 of 2014
-2-
ORDER
Dated this the 04th day of June, 2024
This revision petition is filed challenging
the order passed by the Additional District
Judge-II, Kollam in O.P.(Electricity) No.252 of
2005. The original petition was filed by the
revision petitioner being dissatisfied with the
compensation awarded towards the damage and loss
sustained due to the drawing of 400 KV High
Tension Transmission 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 landed property having an extent of 23.4 cents
in Thinkalkarikkam Village. The land was
cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding
trees. According to the petitioner, to facilitate
drawing of lines for the smooth transmission of
power, 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 property. In spite of the huge loss
suffered by the petitioner, only an amount of
Rs.1,31,663/- was paid as compensation towards
the value of yielding and non-yielding trees cut.
Surprisingly, no compensation was granted for
diminution in land value. Hence, the original
petition was filed, seeking enhanced compensation
towards the value of trees cut and diminution in
land value.
2. The court below found that the
compensation fixed by the Corporation is not in
consonance with the findings in Airports
Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy [(2002) 3
SCC 527] and KSEB v. Livisha [(2007) 6 SCC 792]
and is therefore not just and proper. Thereafter,
based on Ext.A14, the deposition of the
Agricultural Officer, Chavara produced in another
original petition and the deposition of the
petitioner, the yield of the trees and its value
were assessed and fixed. For ascertaining the
diminution in land value, the court below
referred to Ext.A13 sale deed and the Advocate
Commissioner's report and plan. Thus, based on
such fixation, Rs.18,450/- was granted as
compensation for diminution of land value and
Rs.2,26,130/- for the value of trees cut. Thus,
final compensation was fixed as Rs.88,459/- by
deducting the amount already paid towards the
yielding and non-yielding trees cut.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
contended that the court below had grossly erred
in assessing the value of trees and in fixing the
diminution in land value. It is submitted that
after accepting Ext.A14 in evidence, the court
below made substantial reduction from the yield
stated by the Agricultural Officer in Ext.A14,
without assigning any reason. Likewise, in spite
of finding that the petitioner's property and the
property covered by Ext.A13 sale deed are
situated in nearby locality and even after
accepting the report of the Advocate Commissioner
that the petitioner's property is situated in an
important locality, the land value was fixed at
Rs.6,000/- per cent as against Rs.40,000/- per
cent in Ext.A13 sale deed.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent
Corporation submitted that the well considered
order of the court below warrants no
interference.
5. Having carefully considered the
contentions, I find substantial merit in the
argument put forth by the Counsel for the
petitioner. As rightly contended, after
accepting the deposition of the Agricultural
Officer under Section 32(4) of the Indian
Evidence Act, treating it to be the opinion made
by an official in relation to his professional
duty about the existence of matters of public or
general importance, the court below has fixed the
annual yield and the price of various
agricultural products at deviance from the
statement of the expert. Moreover, no reason is
assigned for such deviance also. Further, the
court below has adopted 8 as the multiplier which
appears to be contrary to the law laid down by
the Apex Court in Sk. Imambi v. Collector [(2011)
11 SCC 639], the relevant portion of which reads
as under;
"6. The learned counsel for the
appellant contended that the multiplier
should not be less than 14 adopted by the
Land Acquisition Officer. We cannot
accept the contention of the appellant.
Having regard to the consistent view
taken by this Court, we are of the view
that the High Court was right in holding
that the multiplier should be 10. This
Court has repeatedly held that the
standard multiplier should be 10; and
that in special circumstances based upon
specific evidence regarding the nature,
standard, condition of the orchard, the
Court may apply a higher multiplier of 12
or 13 or a lower multiplier of 8."
6. With respect to the fixation of land
value also, even though the court below is right
in holding that the value of the property cannot
be determined based on the oral evidence of the
petitioner alone, the value could not have been
reduced to a meagre amount of Rs.6,000/- per
cent, without reasons.
For the aforementioned reasons, I find the
court below to have erred in fixing the value of
trees as well as the land value. Being so, the
impugned order is liable to be interfered with.
In the result, the civil revision petition is
allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the
matter is remanded for fresh consideration and
determination of just and proper compensation,
taking into account all relevant factors. The
original petition being of the year 2005, the
court below shall take earnest efforts to dispose
of the matter within four months of receipt of a
copy of this order.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
