Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs Ahammedkutty 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. 604 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.123 OF 2011
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER,
UGRAPURAM, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.E.M.MURUGAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 AHAMMEDKUTTY
S/O.MOIDEEN, KOLATHUMKANDI HOUSE, KAMBALATHGODI,
VALILLAPUZHA P.O.,KODIYATHUR-673 001.
2 NAFEESA WO.AHAMMED KUTTY KOLATHUMKANDI HOUSE
KAMBALATHODI VALILLAPUZHA P.O. KODIYATHUR-673
001.
BY ADV SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRP No.604 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 respondents towards
diminution in land value, consequent upon the
drawing of 400 KV electric lines across their
property by the Corporation. The essential facts
are as under;
The respondents are in ownership and
possession of landed property having an extent of
37 cents comprised in Sy.No.186 of Kodiyathur
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 respondents' property. According to the
respondents, 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
respondents, 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 respondents 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 respondents.
2. After remand, the respondents filed a
statement before the court below clarifying that
they are 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
respondents 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 respondents had relied on Ext.A9
document for the purpose of fixing land value,
considering the lie of the land and nature of
transaction, the court below found that the
property involved in Ext.A9 and the petition
schedule property are not similar or similarly
situated. The court below took note of the fact
that an extent of 33.46 cents is affected due to
the drawing of electric lines and going by the
manner in which the lines were drawn, major
portion of the petition schedule property was
affected. Relying on the commission report and
plan, the court below found that the respondents'
property has no direct vehicular access and the
petition schedule property is connected to the
Panchayat road by a footpath. Based on the said
factors, the court below fixed the land value and
also the affected area and directed to pay 30% of
the land value as compensation. A table
containing the compensation thus awarded is
appended below;
Case Affected Land value Percentage Compensation Compensation Balance
No. area (in per cent of payable paid Compensation
cents) diminution due
OP 33.46 25,000 30% 2,50,950 80,304 1,70,646
123/
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
contention 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/
