Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs Nissy Cherian on 6 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
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRP NO. 888 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.04.2018 IN OPELE
NO.252 OF 2013 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH
PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR, B-9 QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
KATWARIA, SARAI, NEW DELHI 110 016.
BY ADV ANJANA KANNATH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 NISSY CHERIAN,
W/O. CHERIAN, THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, MOOLAPPARA,
CHULLI (P.O.), AYYAMPUZHA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK
683 581.
2 SPECIAL THAHZILDAR (LA),
THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE 673 017.
BY ADVS.
P.T.JOSE
K.P.JOHNSON
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALL HEARD ON
21.05.2024, THE COURT ON 06.06.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP No.888 of 2019
-2-
ORDER
Dated this the 06th day of June, 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 first respondent ('the
claimant' for short), consequent upon the drawing
of 400 KV electric lines across her property by
the Corporation. The essential facts are as
under;
The claimant is in ownership and possession
of landed property having an extent of 10.12 Ares
comprised in Sy.Nos.140/1-2 and 140/1-3 of
Perumbavoor Village. The land was cultivated with
various yielding and non-yielding trees. In order
to facilitate drawing of lines for the smooth
transmission of power, large number of trees were
cut from the claimant'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, only meagre amount was
paid to the claimant as compensation for the loss
sustained. Hence, the original petition was
filed, seeking enhanced compensation towards the
value of trees cut and diminution of land value.
2. Heard Adv.Millu Dandapani for the
Corporation and Adv.P.T.Jose for the claimant.
3. A perusal of the impugned order shows
that the court below has assessed the loss
sustained due to cutting of yielding coconut
palms by assessing the average number of nuts per
year and multiplying it with the value of one
coconut after deducting the immature falling and
expenses. Likewise, the loss sustained due to
cutting of yielding areca palm was assessed by
reckoning the total yield from each palm, the
weight of nuts after drying and the price of
dried nuts. Based on such assessment, the net
income was fixed after deducting the immature
falling and expenses. For reckoning the
compensation amount payable, 8 was taken as the
multiplier. Further, the court below enhanced
the compensation for cutting of timber trees to
Rs.2,000/-, as against Rs.1,000/- assessed by the
Commissioner. Being so, this Court finds the
procedure adopted by the court below to be just
and proper.
4. A perusal of the impugned order shows
that, for the purpose of fixing the compensation
towards diminution in land value, the court below
relied on Exts.C1 and C1(a) commission report and
plan. The Advocate Commissioner had reported that
the petition schedule property has road frontage.
On consideration of the evidence on record, the
land value was fixed at Rs.60,000/- per cent and
awarded 50% of the land value thus fixed as
compensation for the affected area admeasuring
1.98 Ares (4.89 cents). Accordingly, the claimant
was found entitled to compensation of
Rs.2,75,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum.
5. 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
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
awarding 50% of the land value as compensation
for the land affected due to the drawing of
electric lines.
6. The contention of the Corporation that
while adequate compensation was paid to the
claimant in compliance of the orders/directions
of the Government, the court below could not have
altered the compensation is liable to be rejected
since the court is not bound by the
directions/orders issued by the Government while
fixing the compensation. As such, I find no
reason to interfere with the well considered
order of the court below, rendered after taking
all relevant factors into consideration.
For the aforementioned reasons, the civil
revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
