Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs P.C.Kurian 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. 803 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELC NO.380 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:
P.C.KURIAN
S/O CHACKO PULINTHANATH HOUSE VELANKODE P.O
KODDATHAI KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673001
BY ADV SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 23.05.2024, THE COURT ON 12.06.2024 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRP No.803 of 2018
-2-
ORDER
Dated this the 12th 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 61 cents
in Koodathayi Village in Kozhikode Taluk. 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.A12
and A13 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.A12 and A13
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, the property was substantially affected.
Relying on the commission report and sketch, the
court below found that the petition schedule
property is situated at a distance of about 3 Km
from Kodencherry Town and the Mykavu Centre is at
1½ Km away. It was also found that the civic
amenities are available within a radius of 100
metre to 1½ Km and the property is connected to
the PWD road on the south through a private road.
Based on the said finding and on consideration of
the land value fixed in O.P.No.136/2010 and
connected cases, the land value and also the
affected area are fixed and the Corporation was
directed to pay 25% of the land value as
compensation. A table containing the compensation
thus awarded is appended below;
Sl Case No. Affected Land Percent Compensati Compensa Balance
No area (in value age of on payable tion Compensatio
cents) per cent diminut paid n due
ion
1 OP 50 30,000 25% 3,75,000 60,000 3,15,000
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]. 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/
