Kerala High Court
Scariya Paul vs Deputy General Manager 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. 128 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OP NO.245 OF 2010 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
SCARIYA PAUL,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.PAULOSE, MALIYELI HOUSE, VELANKODE,
KODENCHERRY VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT.
BY ADV C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
P.O.URAPURAM, AREEKODE, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT- 673639.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.03.2024, THE COURT ON 22.05.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP No.128 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.245 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 15 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. Thereafter, 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 also 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 residential compound. The
petitioner's property is situated at a distance
of 41 metres from the PWD road, which is
connected through a 3 metre wide mud road. The
court below also found that 6.75 cents out of 15
cents is affected due to the drawing of electric
lines and the electric lines were drawn at a
height of only 10 metres above a portion of the
house situated in the property. 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. As the
electric lines were drawn at a height of only 10
metres above a portion of the petitioner's house,
the court below had fixed the percentage of
diminution at 50% of the land value before remand
and the said finding was affirmed by the impugned
order. 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 6.75 20,000 50% 67,500 27,000 40,500
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.
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 50% 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/
