Kerala High Court
The Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs Rency Joseph 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. 719 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.04.2018 IN OPELE
NO.201 OF 2013 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH
PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682030.
BY ADVS.
ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA
ROJO JOSEPH
SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI,SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL(CG-
49)
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(S-571)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 RENCY JOSEPH,
AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.JOSEPH, MANICKATHAN HOUSE,
NADUVATTOM KARA, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA
TALUK, ERNAKULAM - 683 101.
2 SPECIAL THASILDAR (LA),
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673017.
BY ADV RAJESH VIJAYAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.V.TEKCHAND
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.05.2024, THE COURT ON 06.06.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRP No.719 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;
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.Rojo Joseph for the
Corporation and Adv.Rajesh Vijayan for the
claimant.
3. A perusal of the impugned order shows
that the court below has calculated the loss
sustained due to cutting of yielding nutmeg trees
by assessing the total yield of nutmeg from each
tree after deducting the immature falling and
expenses, the weight of nutmeg after drying and
the mace obtained from the total yield. The net
income was fixed based on the value reported by
the Commissioner. 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. Similar method was
adopted for calculating the loss sustained due to
the cutting of cocoa trees and plantains. For
reckoning the compensation amount payable, 8 was
taken as the multiplier. Further, the court below
fixed the compensation for cutting of nutmeg
saplings at Rs.8,000/-. 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
referred to Exts.C1 and C1(b) commission report
and plan. The Advocate Commissioner had reported
that the petition schedule property has proper
road access. 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 7.79 Ares (19.241 cents).
Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to
compensation of Rs.12,02,900/- with interest at
the rate of 8% per annum.
5. On careful scrutiny of the impugned
order, it is seen that the compensation payable
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
the Government having issued guidelines for
fixation of the land value, the court below ought
to have fixed the value in accordance with the
same is liable to be rejected since the court is
not bound by the guidelines/orders issued by the
Government while fixing the compensation. The
contention that the court below committed an
illegality by awarding interest at the rate of 8%
per annum being without merit, is also liable to
be rejected. 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/
