Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs R.Jayasree 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. 429 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 07.03.2019 IN OPELE
NO.79 OF 2015 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
R.JAYASREE
AGED 50 YEARS
D/O. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, THEKKEMADATHIL HOUSE,
IRINGOLE P.O., PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM
DIST
BY ADVS.
P.C.HARIDAS
SRI.V.S.SURESH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION INDIA LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, CHANDINI PLOT
NO.190-B, MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682 030
2 SEPCIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
POWER GRID CORPORATION INDIA LTD, KAKKANADU,
KOCHI-682 030
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.K.PHARISH; SR.GP.V.TEKCHAND
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 19.03.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.85/2020, THE COURT
ON 31.05.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.429/2019 & 85/2020
-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. 85 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.79 OF 2015
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
CHANDINI, PLOT NO.190-B, MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD,
KOCHI - 682 030, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER.
BY ADV PRAVEEN K. JOY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 R.JAYASREE,
AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI,
THEKKEMADOM, IRINGOLE P.O., PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM - 683 545.
2 SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA),
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., KAKKANAD,
KOCHI - 682 030.
BY ADVS.
P.C.HARIDAS
V.S.SURESH
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.03.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.429/2019, THE COURT ON 31.05.2024,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.429/2019 & 85/2020
-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.79 of 2015. The original
petition was filed by the revision petitioner in
CRP No.429 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 her property by the Power Grid Corporation
of India Ltd (hereinafter called 'the
Corporation'). The essential facts are as under;
According to the claimant, she is in
ownership and possession of landed property
having an extent of 15.40 Ares comprised in Re-
Sy.No.231/5/1 in Block No.18 of Perumbavoor
Village. The land was cultivated with various
CRP Nos.429/2019 & 85/2020
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.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
year and multiplying it with the price of one
coconut after deducting the immature falling and
expenses. Likewise, the loss sustained due to
CRP Nos.429/2019 & 85/2020
cutting of yielding rubber trees was calculated
based on an assessment that 13 Kilograms of latex
can be obtained from a rubber tree per year and
multiplying it with the price of one kilogram.
Based on such assessment, the net income was
fixed after deducting expenses. Similar method
was adopted for calculating the loss sustained
due to the cutting of other yielding trees like
nutmeg and arecanut. For reckoning the
compensation amount payable, 8 was taken as the
multiplier. Further, the court below fixed the
compensation for cutting of mango 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
towards diminution in land value, the court below
relied on Ext.A1 sale deed as well as Exts.C1 and
C1(b) commission report and sketch. The Advocate
Commissioner had reported that the petition
CRP Nos.429/2019 & 85/2020
schedule property is having Panchayat road
access. Based on these factors, the land value
was fixed at Rs.2,00,000/- per cent and awarded
50% of the land value as compensation for the
affected area admeasuring 10.72 Ares (26.49
cents). Taking note of the existence of a
building in the affected area, the court below
granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards injurious affection
of the building. Thus, the claimant was found
entitled to compensation of Rs.29,56,000/- 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
[(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
CRP Nos.429/2019 & 85/2020
land affected due to the drawing of electric
lines and Rs.1,00,000/- for injurious affection
of the building situated in the affected area.
6. 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/orders issued by
the Government while fixing the compensation. In
view of the decision of this Court in Maya Venu
v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd [2023 (7)
KHC 673], the contention that the court below
committed an illegality by allowing a time barred
claim 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
CRP Nos.429/2019 & 85/2020
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
her filing appropriate application.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
