Kerala High Court
Gopinathan Nair vs Power Gried Corporation Of India Ltd on 12 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946
CRP NO. 197 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2017 IN OPELE NO.188 OF
2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
GOPINATHAN NAIR
AGED 71 YEARS
AGED 71, S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, PERUMBILLIYIL HOUSE,
PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD
TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RENJITH
SRI.K.R.PRATHISH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 POWER GRIED CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MEVELIPURAM COLONY,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030, REP. BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR.
2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
(LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-17.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP V.TEKCHAND ,SR.GP K.P.HARISH
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.06.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.646/2019, THE COURT ON 12.06.2024,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019
-2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946
CRP NO. 646 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2017 IN OPELE NO.188 OF
2011 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 ADV ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 GOPINATHAN NAIR,
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, PERUMBILLIYIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI
KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, PIN-
683545.
2 SPECIAL THAHSILDAR (LA),
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE-673017.
3 ADDL. LALITHA P.G.
W/O LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, PERUMBILLIL HOUSE,
PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE 683545.
4 ADDL. AJITHKUMAR
S/O LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, PERUMBILLIL HOUSE,
PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE 683 545. ADDL R3
& R4 BEING LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED R1, ARE IMPLEADED
AS PER ORDER DATED 23-05-2022 IN IA NO. 1/2022 IN CRP
NO. 646/2019.
BY ADVS.
P.C.HARIDAS
SURESH V.S.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.06.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.197/2018, THE COURT ON 12.06.2024,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019
-3-
ORDER
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2024
These revision petitions are filed
challenging the order passed by the Additional
District Judge, North Paravur in O.P.
(Electricity) No.188 of 2011. The original
petition was filed by the revision petitioner in
CRP No.197 of 2018 (hereinafter called 'the
claimant'), being dissatisfied with the
compensation awarded towards the damage and loss
sustained due to the drawing of 400 KV lines
across his property by the Power Grid Corporation
of India Ltd (hereinafter called 'the
Corporation'). The essential facts are as under;
According to the claimant, he is in ownership
and possession of landed property having an
extent of 21.20 Ares in Rayamangalam Village.
The land was cultivated with various yielding and
non-yielding trees. In order to facilitate
CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019
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.S.Renjith for the claimant
and Adv.Millu Dandapani for the Corporation.
3. A perusal of the impugned order shows
that the court below has assessed the loss
sustained due to cutting of yielding rubber trees
based on an assessment that 13 Kilograms of latex
can be obtained from a rubber tree per year and
multiplying it with the price of one kilogram.
Based on such assessment, the net income was
CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019
fixed after deducting expenses. Likewise, the
loss sustained due to cutting of yielding coconut
palms was calculated by assessing the total
number of nuts per year and multiplying it with
the price of one coconut after deducting the
immature falling and expenses. Similar method was
adopted for calculating the loss sustained due to
the cutting of areca palm and pepper vines. For
reckoning the compensation amount payable, 8 was
taken as the multiplier. Further, the court below
fixed the compensation for the jackfruit,
Macaranga peltala (vatta), anjili and other trees
with reference to the Advocate Commissioner's
report and based on a rough estimation. 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 Ext.A2 sale deed as well as Exts.C1
CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019
and C1(g) commission report and plan. On
consideration of the evidence on record, the land
value was fixed at Rs.40,000/- per cent and
awarded 50% of the land value as compensation for
the affected area admeasuring 17.63 Ares (43.55
cents). Thus, the claimant was found entitled to
compensation of Rs.23,46,400/- 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.
CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019
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 petitions filed by the claimant as well
as the Corporation are dismissed. The enhanced
compensation fixed by the court below shall be
paid within three months of receipt of a copy of
this order. Considering the fact that the
CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019
claimant is no more, the enhanced compensation
and the amount, if any deposited pursuant to the
order of this Court or otherwise, shall be
released to the legal heirs of the claimant
(Respondents 3 and 4 in CRP No.646 of 2019) on
their filing appropriate application.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
