Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs Suseela 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. 159 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.10.2017 IN OPELE
NO.552 OF 2012 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
BY ADV SRI.E.M.MURUGAN
RESPONDENT/S:
SUSEELA AMMA
BY ADV SRI.M.DINESH
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26.03.2024, THE COURT ON 28.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP No.159 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 14 cents comprised in Re-
Sy.No.181/4-2 in Block No.8 of Andoorkonom
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 coconut
palms by assessing the average number of nuts per
year and multiplying it with the value of one
coconut after deducting the expenses. For
reckoning the compensation amount payable, 8 was
taken as the multiplier. The claim for
enhancement of compensation towards tapioca plant
was rejected, finding the assessment of loss and
compensation already paid to be reasonable. 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 Ext.C1 commission report. The Advocate
Commissioner had reported that the petition
schedule property is having tar road access and
is situated in an important locality adjacent to
a Government Primary School, Primary Health
Centre, Public Library, Stadium and other
business institutions. Based on these factors,
the land value was fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- per
cent. As the electric lines were drawn on all
sides of the petition schedule property, the
court below granted 30% of the land value thus
fixed as compensation for the affected area
admeasuring 12 cents and for the remaining 2
cents covered by the tower, 100% of the land
value was awarded. Accordingly, the respondent
was found entitled to compensation of
Rs.5,60,213/- with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum.
4. Heard Adv.E.M.Murugan for the
Corporation and Adv.M.Dinesh 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/
