Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs Stephan 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. 759 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.03.2018 IN OP NO.394
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 DT.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STEPHAN
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O SCARIA, THAIKKOOTTATHIL HOUSE,
VELANCODE,P.O,KODENCHERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN 673001
2 MERY STEPHAN,
W/O STEPHAN,THAIKKOTTATHIL HOUSE,VELANKODE
P.O.KODENCHERY KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 6730001
BY ADVS.
SMT.BIMALA BABY
SHRI. JEFRIN JOSE
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
7.03.2024, THE COURT ON 22.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP No.759 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 respondents towards
diminution in land value, consequent upon the
drawing of 400 KV electric lines across their
property by the Corporation. The essential facts
are as under;
The respondents are in ownership and
possession of landed property having a total
extent of 55 cents in Kodencherry 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
respondents, 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
respondents, only small amount was granted as
compensation. Hence, respondents 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, the respondents 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 respondents. After remand,
the respondents filed a statement before the
court below clarifying that they are 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.
3. After remand, learned Counsel for the
respondents contended that the land value was
fixed on the basis of fair value extracts
prepared by the Revenue Authorities, which was
not proper and therefore, the land value fixed as
well as percentage of diminution granted by the
court below before remand are on the lower side.
Hence, the land value should be fixed on the
basis of the locational features of the petition
schedule property, and the percentage of
diminution on the basis of the extent of damage
sustained. The properties involve in Exts.A11 and
A12 documents were pointed out as comparable
lands and prayer made to enhance the compensation
accordingly.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
Corporation argued that, before remand, the court
below had rightly assessed the compensation on
the basis of commission reports, plans as well as
the fair value extracts and the respondents had
received the compensation thus fixed without
demur. It is contended that Exts.A11 and A12
cannot be relied for fixing the land value, since
the properties are not similar having similar
features or are similarly situated.
6. Although Exts.A11 and A12 documents were
pressed into service as comparable lands, it was
found that, unlike the respondents' property, the
properties covered by Exts.A11 and A12 are
situated near to town/market centres and are
commercial sites. Despite the fact that civic
amenities are available within close proximity,
the petition schedule property was found to be
situated at a distance of 3 Km from Kodencherry
Town. The court below also took note of the fact
that the petition schedule property has only a
footpath access to Thamarassery-Kodencherry PWD
road that lies at a distance of 50 metres from
the property. On consideration of the above
factors and the centage value fixed in O.P.(Ele.)
No.136 of 2010 and connected cases, the court
below fixed the land value at Rs.30,000/- per
cent, as against Rs.15,000/- per cent fixed
earlier. As a substantial portion of property is
affected by drawing of the electric lines, the
court below enhanced the percentage of diminution
to 25% of the land value. A table containing the
compensation thus awarded is appended below;
Sl Case Affected Land Percentage Compensation Compensation Balance
Compensation
No No. area value of payable paid due
per cent diminution
1 OP 38.5 30,000 25% 2,88,750 1,15,500 1,73,250
In view of the decision of this Court in
P.Raghavan v. KSEB [CRP No.3256 of 2001], the
court below directed to pay interest on the
additional compensation at the rate of 12% per
annum from the date of cutting of trees to 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 25% of the land value as compensation
for the lands 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/
