Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Narayanan vs Power Grid Corporation India Ltd
2024 Latest Caselaw 12991 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 12991 Ker
Judgement Date : 23 May, 2024

Kerala High Court

Narayanan vs Power Grid Corporation India Ltd on 23 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
    THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                        CRP NO. 136 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.10.2018 IN OPELE NO.76 OF
2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II, NORTH
                             PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

            NARAYANAN
            AGED 68 YEARS
            S/O. PAPPU, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, VENGOLA KARA, VENGOLA
            VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.
            BY ADV P.C.HARIDAS


RESPONDENT/S:

    1       POWER GRID CORPORATION INDIA LTD.,
            CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
            KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030.
    2       SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
            POWER GRID CORPORATION INDIA LTD, CHEVARAMBALAM,
            KOZHIKKODE-17.

OTHER PRESENT:

            SR.GP.V.TEKCHAND;SR.GP.K.P.HARISH


        THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14.03.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.706/2019, THE COURT ON 23.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.136 & 706 of 2019

                                -2-




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
    THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                        CRP NO. 706 OF 2019
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.76 OF 2014 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II, NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

           THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
           CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
           KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682030.
           BY ADV ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA


RESPONDENT/S:

     1     NARAYANAN,
           AGED 69 YEARS
           S/O.PAPPU, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, VENGOLA KARA, VENGOLA
           VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK - 683 545.
     2     SPECIAL THASILDAR (LA),
           POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
           KOZHIKODE - 670017.

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14.03.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.136/2019, THE COURT ON 23.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.136 & 706 of 2019

                                      -3-



                                  ORDER

Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024

These revision petitions are filed

challenging the order passed by the Additional

District Judge-II, North Paravur in O.P.

(Electricity) No.76 of 2014. The original

petition was filed by the revision petitioner in

CRP No.136 of 2019 (hereinafter called 'the

claimant'), 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;

According to the claimant, he is in ownership

and possession of landed property having an

extent of 8.89 Ares (25 cents) comprised in Re-

Sy.No.387/1 of Vengola Village in Kunnathunadu

Taluk. The land was cultivated with various CRP Nos.136 & 706 of 2019

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 claimant's property. The drawing of

high tension lines rendered the land underneath

and adjacent to the lines useless, resulting in

diminution of the value of the property. In spite

of the huge loss suffered by the claimant, only

meagre amount was paid towards value of the trees

cut and no amount was paid to compensate the

diminution of land value. Hence, the original

petition was filed, seeking enhanced compensation

towards the value of trees cut and diminution of

land value.

2. Heard Adv.P.C.Haridas for the claimant

and Adv.Millu Dandapani for the Corporation.

3. A perusal of the impugned order shows

that the court below has assessed the loss

sustained due to cutting of yielding coconut

palms by assessing the average number of nuts per CRP Nos.136 & 706 of 2019

year and multiplying it with the value of one

coconut after deducting the expenses. Likewise,

the loss sustained due to cutting of areca palm

was assessed by reckoning the total yield from

each palm, the weight of nuts after drying and

the price of dried nuts. Based on such

assessment, the net income was fixed after

deducting the expenses. Similar method was

adopted for calculating the loss sustained due to

the cutting of other yielding trees like nutmug,

cocoa, coffee, mango, jack tree and pepper vines.

For reckoning, the compensation amount payable,

8 was taken as the multiplier. Being so, this

Court finds the procedure adopted by the court

below 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

relied on Exts.A1 to A4 assignment deeds and

Ext.A13 commission report. Based on these CRP Nos.136 & 706 of 2019

factors, the land value was fixed at

Rs.1,50,000/- per cent, which is less than the

value fixed for adjacent lands. The lesser value

was fixed for the claimant's land as it has no

direct access to the public road. The court

below awarded 50% of the land value thus fixed as

compensation, in view of the fact that the

affected area admeasuring 3.05 Ares (7.53 cents)

is very fertile land fit for cultivation and

construction of residence. Accordingly, the

claimant was found entitled to compensation of

Rs.13,45,550/- with interest at the rate of 6%

per annum.

5. The contention of the Corporation that

the Government having issued guidelines for

fixation of the land value, the court below ought

to have fixed the value 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 CRP Nos.136 & 706 of 2019

contention that the court below committed an

illegality by awarding interest at the rate of 6%

per annum being without merit, is also liable to

be rejected. As such, I find no reason to

interfere with the well considered order of the

court below, rendered after taking all relevant

factors into consideration.

For the aforementioned reasons, the civil

revision petitions filed by the claimant as well

as the Corporation are dismissed. The enhanced

compensation fixed by the court below shall be

paid within three months of receipt of a copy of

this order. If any amount is deposited pursuant

to the order of this Court or otherwise, the same

shall forthwith be released to the claimant on

his filing appropriate application.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter