Kerala High Court
Madanlal 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. 177 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2013 IN OPELE
NO.345 OF 2006 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
MADANLAL
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.SANKARA PILLAI, PADMAVILASOM, MATHIRA
MURI,MANGODU VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK.
BY ADV SRI.ARUN BABU
RESPONDENT/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
PONGUMMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF MANAGER - 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.177 of 2015
-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.345 of
2006. 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 52.364
cents in Mancode 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.1,80,156/- 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.A10, the deposition of the Deputy
Rubber Production Commissioner, Kottarakkara,
as well as Ext.A11 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.A9 sale deed and the Advocate
Commissioner's report and plan. Thus, final
compensation was fixed as Rs.2,44,209/- 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 cut and in fixing
the diminution in land value. It is submitted
that after accepting Exts.A10 and A11 in
evidence, the court below made substantial
reduction from the yield, without assigning any
reason. Likewise, in spite of finding that the
petitioner's property and the property covered by
Ext.A9 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.A9 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 depositions of the Deputy Rubber Production
Commissioner and Agricultural Officer under
Section 32(4) of the Indian Evidence Act,
treating it to be the opinions made by officials
in relation to their 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 statements of the
experts. 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 2006, 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/
