Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited vs George Jacob on 28 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
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRP NO. 256 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.142 OF 2011
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
REP BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AREACODE PO,
UGRAPURAM, ERNAD THALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST.
BY ADV E.M.MURUGAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 GEORGE JACOB
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O.JACOB KYNADI HOUSE, AR CAMP ROAD,
MARIKUNNU.P.O, KOZHIKODE-673012.
2 LALITHA GEORGE,
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O.GEORGE JACOB KYNADI HOUSE, AR CAMP ROAD,
MARIKUNNU.P.O, KOZHIKODE-673012.
3 GRACE GEORGE,
AGED 70 YEARS
W/O.DR GEORGE THOMAS, REPRESENTED BY POA HOLDER
GEORGE JACOB, KYNADI HOUSE, AR CAMP ROAD,
MARIKUNNU PO, KOZHIKODE-673012.
4 ANU JACOB
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O.JACOB GEORGE, KYNADI HOUYSE, AR CAMP ROAD,
MARIKUNNU PO, KOZHIKODE-673012.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
SRI.P.A.HARISH
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.02.2024, THE COURT ON 28.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP No.256 of 2019
-2-
ORDER
Dated this the 28th 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
properties by the Corporation. The essential
facts are as under;
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 respondents'
properties. 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
amounts were granted as compensation. Hence, the
respondents filed the original petition, seeking
enhanced compensation towards the value of trees
cut and diminution in land value. Being
dissatisfied with the enhancement of compensation
awarded by the court, 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 for the
improvements. Accordingly, the court below
considered the claim for enhanced compensation
towards diminution in land value alone and passed
the impugned order.
2. After remand, it was argued on behalf of
the respondents that, fixation of lower the land
value without proper consideration of essential
facts had resulted in the percentage of
diminution being fixed on the lower side. It was
submitted that the property involved in Ext.A8
document, which is a similar land, was sold at
Rs.75,000/- per cent. Reliance was placed on the
property involved in O.P.No.74 of 2010 to claim
that the land value should not be less than
Rs.35,000/- per cent. The findings in the
Advocate Commissioner's report was also pressed
into service to establish similarity between the
lands involved.
3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the
petitioner Corporation had argued that a fair and
adequate compensation had been awarded after
considering all relevant factors, including
Ext.A7 fair value statement and G.O.(Rt)
No.581/2010/RD dated 04.02.2010. It was contended
that the property involved in Ext.A8 document is
not having similar locational features and is not
similarly situated land and a higher price had
been paid by the buyer of that property, since
the transaction was commercial in nature.
4. Although respondents had relied on
Ext.A8 document, the court below refused to
accept the property involved in the said document
as comparable land, in view of the fact that the
property involved in Ext.A8 document was
transferred to provide access-cum-parking space
for a hotel-cum-restaurant proposed to be
constructed in that property. On the other hand,
the court below took note of the fact that the
petition schedule properties abut the Panchayat
road on the north and important places like
Maikavu and Kodencherry are situated at a
distance of 1 Km. The fact that, a Government
College is situated within 600 metres, an LP
School at 400 metres and a PWD road passes at a
distance of 600 metres was taken into account. On
consideration of the above factors and on
comparison of the petition schedule properties
with the property involved in Ext.A11 document,
the court below fixed the land value at
Rs.35,000/- per cent, as against Rs.10,000/- per
cent fixed earlier. As substantial portion of
the respondent's property was found affected due
to the drawing of electric lines, 25% of the land
value was fixed as compensation for the corridor
and 100% of the land value for the area covered
by the tower. A table containing the compensation
thus awarded, in accordance with the extent in
the possession of each respondent, is appended
below;
O.P No. Extent of Land % of Compensatio Compensati Compensation
affected area value diminution n payable on paid due
in cents per
cent
OP Corridor Tower Corridor Tower
1)George 20 7.75 35,000 25% 100% 4,46,250 94,250 3,52,000
Jacob
2)Lalitha 250 - 35,000 25% - 21,87,500 5,00,000 16,87,500
3)Grace 46 - 35,000 25% - 4,02,500 92,000 3,10,500
George
4)Anu 17 - 35,000 25% - 1,48,750 34,000 1,14,750
Jacob
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.
5. Heard learned Counsel appearing on
either side.
6. On careful scrutiny of the impugned
order, it is seen that the compensation payable
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 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
awarding 25% of the land value as compensation
for the land affected due to the drawing of
electric lines and 100% for the tower footing
area.
7. 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 the court is not
bound by the guidelines issued by the Government
while fixing the compensation. The contention
that the court below committed an illegality by
awarding interest at the rate of 12% cannot also
be sustained in the light of the decision of this
Court in P.Raghavan (supra). 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 petition is dismissed.
sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
