Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs K.P.Aboobacker
2024 Latest Caselaw 17530 Ker

Kerala High Court

Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs K.P.Aboobacker on 21 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 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1946
                          CRP NO. 218 OF 2017
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.71 OF 2010
   OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III,
                                MANJERI
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

           POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
           REP.BY ITS ADDL. GENERAL MANAGER,
           UGRAPURAM,AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DT.
           BY ADV SRI.E.M.MURUGAN


RESPONDENT/S:

           K.P.ABOOBACKER
           S/O.ABDULLA, KARIKKADAN POYIL HOUSE, AREACODE,
           AMSOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
           BY ADVS.
           SRI.K.M.FIROZ
           SMT.M.SHAJNA
           SRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL
           SRI.P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ


THIS   CIVIL   REVISION   PETITION   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY   HEARD   ON
28.05.2024, THE COURT ON 21.06.2024       DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP No.218 of 2017

                             -2-



                           ORDER

Dated this the 21st 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, 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 301 cents

in Areacode Village. The land was cultivated with

various yielding and non-yielding trees. In order

to facilitate drawing of lines for the smooth

transmission of power, large number of trees were

cut from the respondent's property. The drawing

of high tension lines rendered the land

underneath and adjacent to the lines useless,

resulting in diminution of the land value. In

spite of the huge loss suffered, only meagre

amount was paid to the respondent 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.E.M.Murugan for the

Corporation and Adv.K.M.Firoz for the respondent.

3. A perusal of the impugned order shows

that the court below has computed the loss

sustained due to cutting of yielding coconut

palms and areaca palms by assessing the net yield

and net return value. For reckoning the

compensation amount payable, 8 was taken as the

multiplier. Being so, the procedure adopted by

the court below is found 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

referred to the commission report and plan. The

Advocate Commissioner had reported that the

petition schedule property, which is a garden

land, has proper road access from the nearest

public way. Based on the said findings, the land

value was fixed at Rs.40,000/- per cent and

awarded 30% of the land value as compensation for

the affected area admeasuring 31 cents.

Accordingly, the respondent was found entitled to

compensation of Rs.3,73,083/- with interest at

the rate of 10% 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 30% of the land value as compensation

for the land affected due to the drawing of

electric lines.

6. The contention of the Corporation that

the Government having fixed the fair value of the

land and also issued guidelines for the fixation

of 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 in awarding 10% interest being without

merit, is also liable to be rejected. 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.

For the aforementioned reasons, the civil

revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/