Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of Indid Ltd vs Devaki Amma 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. 157 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.06.2017 IN OPELE
NO.384 OF 2013 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDID LTD.
PONGUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY
ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER G. AMBIKA DEVI.
BY ADV E.M.MURUGAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DEVAKI AMMA
D/O GOMATHY AMMA, RESIDING AT VALIYAKANA
KUNNATHU VEEDU, NELLANADU, NEELANADU VILLAGE,
NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 THE SPECIAL REVENUE OFFICER (COMPENSATION)
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, PALLIPURAM,
KANIYAMPURAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 301.
BY ADVS.
G.P.SHINOD
GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
AJIT G ANJARLEKAR
ATUL MATHEWS
GAYATHRI S.B.
OTHER PRESENT:
sr.gp.v.tekchand
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26.03.2024, THE COURT ON 28.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP No.157 of 2018
-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
respondent, consequent upon the drawing of 400
KV electric lines across her property by the
Corporation. The essential facts are as under;
According to the respondent, she is in
ownership and possession of landed property
having an extent of 65 cents in Nellanaduu
Village. The land was cultivated with various
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 respondent'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,
only meagre amount was paid to the respondent
as compensation for the loss thus sustained.
Hence, the original petition was filed, seeking
enhanced compensation towards the value of
trees cut and diminution of land value.
2. A perusal of the impugned order shows
that the court below has assessed the loss
sustained due to cutting of yielding trees
based on the oral evidence of the respondent
and the documents on record. Finding the
valuation made by the respondent to be
reasonable, the compensation was computed in
the following manner.
No. Annual Price Multiplier Total Labour Net Rs.
of yielding per charge
trees Kg/unit Kg/unit
Coconut 8 240 4.07 8 62515.2 6251.52 56263.68
Arecanut 6 400 0.47 8 9024 902.4 8121.6
Rubber 50 6 54 8 1,29,600 12,960 1,16,640
Total 1,81,024
Amount already given for these items 45,530
Amount to be awarded 1,35,494
Being so, this Court finds the procedure
adopted by the court below to be just and
proper.
3. 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.C1 and C1(a) commission report and
plan as well as the Mahazar. Although the
respondent had relied on Ext.A10 sale deed, the
court below refused to accept the property
involved in the said document as comparable land,
since the property involved in Ext.A10 document
is lying adjacent to the M.C.Road, while the
petition schedule property is adjacent to a 3
metre wide road. It was also found that the
transaction by way of Ext.A10 document was in the
year 2014, whereas the cause of action with
respect to the petition schedule property had
arisen in the year 2003. Based on the above
factors and on consideration of the commercial
value as well as the lie and nature of petition
schedule property, the land value was fixed at
Rs.30,000/- per cent and 30% of the land value
thus fixed was granted as compensation for the
affected area admeasuring 14.75 cents. For an
extent of 9.5 cents covered by the tower, 100% of
the land value was awarded. Accordingly, the
respondent was found entitled to compensation of
Rs.4,48,462/- with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum.
4. Heard Adv.E.M.Murugan for the
Corporation and Adv.Govind Padmanabhan for the
respondent.
5. 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
awarding 30% of the land value as compensation
for the land affected due to the drawing of
electric lines and 100% for the tower footing
area.
6. 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. In view
of the decision of this Court in KSEB v Maranchi
Matha [2008 (1) KLT 1038], the contention that
the court below has transgressed its
jurisdiction, by granting interest from the date
of cutting of trees, is liable to be rejected.
The argument that an illegality was committed by
awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum
being without merit, cannot also be sustained.
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.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
