Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs Raju Skariya on 7 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
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRP NO. 755 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.04.2018 IN OP NO.213
OF 2010 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER,
UGRAPURAM, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV E.M.MURUGAN
RESPONDENT/S:
RAJU SKARIYA
S/O SKARIYA, VARIKKAMAKKAL HOUSE, KUPPAYAKODE
P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SMT.BIMALA BABY
SHRI. JEFRIN JOSE
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRP No.755 of 2018
-2-
ORDER
Dated this the 07th 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 respondent towards
diminution in land value, consequent upon the
drawing of 400 KV electric lines across his
property by the Corporation. The essential facts
are as under;
The respondent is in ownership and possession
of landed property having an extent of 75 cents
comprised in Re-Sy.No.57/1 of Eangappuzha
Village. The land was cultivated with various
yielding and non-yielding trees. In order to
facilitate drawing of 400 KV electric lines for
the smooth transmission of power in the Mysore-
Kozhikode sector, large number of trees were cut
from the respondent's property. According to the
respondent, the drawing of high tension lines had
rendered the land underneath and adjacent
useless, resulting in diminution of the land
value. In spite of the huge loss suffered by the
respondent, only small amount was granted as
compensation. Hence, the original petition was
filed, seeking enhanced compensation towards the
value of trees cut and diminution in land value.
Being dissatisfied with the enhanced compensation
ordered by the court, the respondent preferred
civil revision petition and the same was allowed
by this Court and the case remanded back with a
direction to determine yield from each tree and
to consider all components of diminution in land
value including prevailing market price of the
land and any new factor which may be brought to
the notice of the court by the respondent.
2. After remand, the respondent filed a
statement before the court below clarifying that
he is not claiming additional compensation for
loss in value of improvements. Accordingly, the
court below considered the claim for enhanced
compensation towards diminution in land value
alone and passed the impugned order.
3. Heard learned Counsel appearing on
either side.
4. Learned Counsel for the revision
petitioner Corporation contended that the land
value fixed is not based on legal evidence.
Further, the additional compensation awarded is
unreasonable and the diminution in land value,
far in excess of the percentage fixed by the
Government. Per contra, learned Counsel for the
respondent argued that the enhancement is
reasonable and has been granted after considering
all relevant factors.
5. A perusal of the impugned order shows
that, although respondent had relied on Exts.A18
and A19 documents for the purpose of fixing land
value, considering the lie of the lands and
nature of transactions, the court below found
that the properties involved in Exts.A18 and A19
and the petition schedule property are not
similar or similarly situated. The court below
took note of the fact that an extent of 50 cents
is affected due to the drawing of electric lines
and going by the manner in which the lines were
drawn, more than half of the petition schedule
property was affected. Relying on the commission
report and plan, the court below found that the
petition schedule property is situated at a
distance of 2 Km from Kaithappoyil Town and abuts
Eangappuzha-Kodencherry PWD road. The Advocate
Commissioner had also reported that the civic
amenities are available within a radius of 1 Km
to 2 Km. Based on the said findings and a
comparison of the petition schedule property with
the property included in Ext.A20 common order,
the court below fixed the land value and also the
affected area and directed to pay 25% of the land
value as compensation. A table containing the
compensation thus awarded is appended below;
Case No. Affected Land Percent Compensati Compensa Balance
area (in value age of on payable tion Compensatio
cents) per cent diminut paid n due
ion
OP 213/2010 50 55,000 25% 6,87,500 1,00,000 5,87,500
6. 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].
7. The contention of the Corporation that
the Government having fixed the fair value of the
land and also issued guidelines for the fixation
of the percentage of diminution, the court below
ought to have fixed the land value and percentage
of diminution 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 12% interest cannot also
be sustained in the light of the decision of this
Court in P.Raghavan v. KSEB [CRP No.3256 of
2001]. In view of the decision of this Court in
KSEB v Maranchi Matha [2008 (1) KLT 1038], the
argument that the court below has transgressed
its jurisdiction, by granting interest from the
date of cutting of trees, 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/
