Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs K.J.Mathews on 22 May, 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 22ND DAY OF MAY 2024 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1946
CRP NO. 680 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OP NO.160 OF 2010 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:
K.J.MATHEWS
S/O.JACOB, KIZHAKKEKUNNATH HOUSE,P.O.PUTHUPPADI,
PUTHUPPADI VILLAGE,KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT-673 02.
BY ADVS.
V.V.SURENDRAN
P.A.HARISH
PAUL MATHEW
ANUSREE.C
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.03.2024, THE COURT ON 22.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP No.680 of 2018
-2-
ORDER
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 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 a total extent of 70
cents in Puthuppadi Village of 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
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,
respondent filed the original petition, seeking
enhanced compensation towards the value of trees
cut and diminution in land value.
2. Thereafter, being dissatisfied with the
enhancement of compensation awarded by the court
below, 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.
3. 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. Hence, the court
below considered the claim for enhanced
compensation towards diminution in land value
alone and passed the impugned order.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent
submitted before the court below that the
petition schedule property is situated in a
highly potential area having all civic
facilities. As the electric lines were drawn
across the middle of the property, the land value
has diminished considerably. The court below
fixed the land value and the percentage of
diminution without considering these vital
factors. The properties involved in Exts.A6 and
A9 documents were pointed out as comparable lands
and prayer made to enhance the compensation
accordingly.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
Corporation argued that the compensation was
assessed on the basis of scientific methods
approved by the State Government and the
respondent had received the said compensation
without objection. It is further submitted that
the respondent is not entitled to the benefits
under the Land Acquisition Act and hence, any
enhancement, based on the factors mentioned in
that Act, will be illegal.
6. Although respondent relied on Exts.A6
and A9 documents, the court below refused to
accept the properties involved in the said
documents as comparable lands. It was found that
while properties directly abut the PWD road and
the transactions are commercial in nature, the
petition schedule property is a residential
compound situated at a distance of 75 metres from
NH-212 and abuts the Puthiyangadi-Kannappankundu
Panchayat Road on the east. The court below also
took note of the fact that 54 cents out of the
total extent of 70 cents is affected due to
drawing of the electric lines. Based on the above
factors and the locational features of the
property, the court below fixed the land value at
Rs.35,000/- per cent, as against Rs.15,000/- per
cent fixed earlier. As the respondent's house was
situated in the portion covered by the electric
lines, the court below fixed the percentage of
diminution at 40% of the land value. A table
containing the compensation thus awarded is
appended below;
Sl Case Affected Land Percentage Compensation Compensation Balance
No No. area value of payable paid Compensation
per diminution due
cent
1 OP 54 35,000 40% 7,56,000 3,24,000 4,32,000
In view of the decision of this Court in
P.Raghavan v. KSEB [CRP No.3256 of 2001], the
interest on the additional compensation was
directed to be paid at the rate of 12% per annum
from the date of cutting of trees till the date
of payment.
7. Heard learned Counsel appearing on
either side.
8. 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
granting 40% of the land value as compensation
for the land affected due to the drawing of
electric lines.
9. The contention of the Corporation that
the Government having fixed the fair value, the
court below could not have fixed a higher value
is liable to be rejected since, while assessing
the damage sustained and fixing the compensation,
the court is not bound by the guidelines/orders
issued by the Government. The contention that the
court below committed an illegality in awarding
12% interest cannot also be sustained in the
light of the decision of this Court in P.Raghavan
(supra). As such, there is no illegality or
material irregularity in the impugned order,
warranting intervention by this Court in exercise
of the revisional power under Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
For the aforementioned reasons, the civil
revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
