Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs Antony E.O 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. 605 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 08.03.2018 IN OPELE
NO.156 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER,UGRAPURAM,
AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DT.
BY ADV SRI.E.M.MURUGAN
RESPONDENT/S:
ANTONY E.O
S/O. AUSEPH, CHIRAYATH (H),VELAMKODE AMSOM
DESOM, KODENCHERY.
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.605 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;
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.A8
and A9 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.A8 and A9
and the petition schedule property are not
similar or similarly situated. The court below
took note of the fact that an extent of 22.25
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 property was
affected. Relying on the commission report and
sketch, the court below found that the petition
schedule property, which is an agricultural land,
has no direct road access and the property is
connected to the nearby road by a mud road. The
court below also took note of the fact that the
petition schedule property is situated at a
distance of 150 metres from the nearby town
centres. Based on the said factors, the land
value and also the affected area were fixed and
the Corporation was directed to pay 30% of the
land value as compensation. A table containing
the compensation thus awarded is appended below;
Sl Case Affected Land Percentage Compensation Compensation Balance
No No. area (in value per of payable paid Compensation
cents) cent diminution due
1 OP 22.25 25,000 30% 1,66,875 26,700 1,40,175
156/
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/
