Kerala High Court
The Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs Sreenivasan.M.G on 31 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
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRP NO. 518 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2017 IN OPELC
NO.90 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
SREENIVASAN M.G
AGED 42 YEARS
AGED 42, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, MADATHIL
HOUSE, CHOORAKKAD KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683 562.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.C.ELDHO
SRI.ANEESH JAMES
SRI.JIJO THOMAS
SRI.MALLENATHAN.M.
SMT.K.SINDHU ELIAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030.
2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-17.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.K.PHARISH;
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 27.05.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.696/2019, THE COURT
ON 31.05.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.518/2018 & 696/2019
-2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRP NO. 696 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2017 IN OPELE
NO.90 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682 030.
BY ADV ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SREENIVASAN.M.G
S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, MADATHIL HOUSE,
CHOOPRAKKOD KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, PIN - 683562.
2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
(LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,
CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 017.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.C.ELDHO
SRI.MALLENATHAN.M.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.05.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.518/2018, THE COURT ON 31.05.2024,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.518/2018 & 696/2019
-3-
ORDER
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2024
These revision petitions are filed
challenging the order passed by the Additional
District Judge, North Paravur in O.P.
(Electricity) No.90 of 2011. The original
petition was filed by the revision petitioner in
CRP No.518 of 2018 (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 11.35 Ares comprised in Re-Sy.No.304/1
and another extent of 20.86 Ares in Re-
CRP Nos.518/2018 & 696/2019
Sy.Nos.305/6 and 305/7 in Block No.27 of
Pattimattom Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk. 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
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, only meagre amount was paid to the
claimant as compensation for the loss sustained.
Hence, the original petition was filed, seeking
enhanced compensation towards the value of trees
cut and diminution of land value.
2. Heard Adv.K.C.Eldho 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
CRP Nos.518/2018 & 696/2019
tree by assessing the average number of nuts per
year and multiplying it with the value of one
coconut after deducting the immature falling and
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 immature falling and
expenses. Similar method was adopted for
calculating the loss sustained due to the cutting
of nutmeg and pepper vines. For reckoning, the
compensation amount payable, 8 was taken as the
multiplier. Further, the court below fixed the
compensation for cutting of valuable trees based
on the assessment made by the Commissioner.
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
CRP Nos.518/2018 & 696/2019
towards diminution in land value, the court below
relied on Ext.A2 sale deed as well as Exts.C1,
C1(j) and C1(k) commission report and plans. On
consideration of the evidence on record and in
view of the fact that the petition schedule
property was not having a motorable pathway
access, the land value was fixed at Rs.1,20,000/-
per cent and awarded 50% of the land value as
compensation for the affected area admeasuring
10.12 Ares (25 cents). Accordingly, the claimant
was found entitled to compensation of
Rs.16,86,800/- with interest at the rate of 8%
per annum.
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
CRP Nos.518/2018 & 696/2019
[(2007) 6 SCC 792]. Similarly, the discretion
vested with the court was properly exercised by
awarding 50% of the land value as compensation
for the land affected due to the drawing of
electric lines.
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. The
contention that the court below committed an
illegality by awarding interest at the rate of 8%
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
CRP Nos.518/2018 & 696/2019
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/
