Kerala High Court
Isac.A.C vs Deputy General Manager, Power Grid ... 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. 483 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OP NO.244 OF 2010 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
ISAC.A.C
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.CHACKO, ARAKKATHOTTATHIL HOUSE,
P.O.VELANKODE, KODENCHERY VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE
TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, POWER GRID CORPORATION
OF INDIA LTD.,
AREEKODE P.O., UGRAPURAM, ERNAD TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 639.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.03.2024, THE COURT ON 22.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP No.483 of 2019
-2-
ORDER
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2024
This revision petition is filed challenging
the order passed by the Additional District
Judge-I, Kozhikode in O.P.(Electricity) No.244 of
2010. The original petition was filed by the
revision petitioner 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;
The petitioner is in ownership and possession
of landed property having an extent of 34 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 petitioner, 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 petitioner, only small
amount was granted as compensation. Hence, the
petitioner filed original petition, seeking
enhanced compensation towards the value of trees
cut and diminution in land value.
2. Therefore, being dissatisfied with the
enhancement of compensation awarded by the court
below, petitioner 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 petitioner. After remand, the
petitioner 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.
3. After remand, learned Counsel for the
revision petitioner contended before the court
below that the land value was improperly fixed on
the basis of fair value extract and this
resulted in the fixation of land value as well as
the percentage of diminution being on the lower
side. It was contended that the land value fixed
in O.P.(Ele) No.136 of 2010 and connected cases
should be considered for fixing the land value of
the petition schedule property. The properties
involved in Exts.A15 and A16 documents were
pointed out as comparable lands and prayer made
to enhance the compensation accordingly.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent
Corporation argued that the petition schedule
property is a wetland without direct road
frontage even to the Panchayat road and access to
the property is through a mud road. Therefore,
the land value fixed for plots abutting PWD and
Panchayat roads cannot be adopted for fixing the
land value of the petition schedule property.
According to the learned Counsel, the land value
was fixed after considering the locational
features and civic amenities available and any
further enhancement will be excessive and
improper.
5. Although petitioner relied on Exts. A15
and A16 documents, the court below refused to
accept the properties involved in the said
documents as comparable lands. It was found that,
while those properties are garden lands as well
as commercial sites, the petition schedule
property is a reclaimed wetland and is situated
near to Velamkkode junction. Similarly, the
Omassery Town is also situated at a distance of 8
Kilometres from the petition schedule property
and the civic amenities are available within a
radius of 1 to 1½ Kms. Moreover, the petitioner's
property is situated at a distance of 75 metres
from the PWD road, which is connected through a 3
metre wide mud road. The court below also found
that 31.75 cents out of a total extent of 34
cents is affected due to the drawing of electric
lines. On consideration of the above factors
along with the locational features and on
comparison of the petition schedule property with
the properties involved in Exts.A15 and A16
documents, the court below fixed the land value
at Rs.20,000/- per cent, as against Rs.8,000/-
per cent fixed earlier. Taking into account the
fact that a substantial area of the property
falls under the extent covered by the corridor,
the court below has increased the percentage of
diminution from 20% of the land value to 25%
after remand. 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 31.75 20,000 25% 68,750 22,000 46,750
In view of the decision of this Court in
P.Raghavan v. KSEB [CRP No.3256 of 2001],
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.
6. Heard learned Counsel appearing on
either side.
7. 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
affirming 25% of the land value as compensation
for the land affected due to the drawing of
electric lines. As such, there is no illegality
or material irregularity in the impugned order,
warranting this Court's interference 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.
If any amount is deposited pursuant to the
order of this Court or otherwise, the same shall
forthwith be released to the petitioner on his
filing appropriate application. The entire
enhanced compensation shall be paid to the
petitioner within three months of receipt of a
copy of this order.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
