Kerala High Court
Alli Devi vs Power Grid Corporation India Ltd 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. 392 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.11.2018 IN OPELE NO.156 OF
2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
1 ALLI DEVI
AGED 68 YEARS
W/O LATE K.G.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, KADAL BHAVAN,
VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O.PULLUVAZHY, RAYAMANGALAM
VILLAGE.
2 SAJEEV V.G,
AGED 1 YEARS
S/O K.G.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, KADAL BHAVAN,
VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O.PULLUVAZHY, RAYAMANGALAM
VILLAGE.
3 SARITHA G PANICKER,
AGED 1 YEARS
D/O K.G.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, KADAL BHAVAN,
VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O.PULLUVAZHY, RAYAMANGALAM
VILLAGE.
BY ADV P.C.HARIDAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION INDIA LTD
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030
2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
POWER GRID CORPORATION INDIA LTD, CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE-17
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.K.PHARISH; SR.GP.V.TEKCHAND
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
31.05.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.683/2019, THE COURT ON 31.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.392 & 683 of 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. 683 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.11.2018 IN OPELE NO.156 OF
2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN- 682030.
BY ADV ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 ALLI DEVI,
AGED 68 YEARS
W/O.K.G.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, KADAL BHAVAN,
VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O., PULLUVAZHY RAYAMANGALAM
VILLAGE- 683545.
2 SAJEEV V.G.,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.K.G.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, KADAL BHAVAN,
VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O., PULLUVAZHY RAYAMANGALAM
VILLAGE- 683545.
3 SARITHA G.PANICKER,
AGED 38 YEARS
D/O.K.G.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, KADAL BHAVAN,
VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O., PULLUVAZHY RAYAMANGALAM
VILLAGE- 683545.
4 SPECIAL THASILDHAR, (LA),
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE- 673017.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.HARIDAS
SRI.V.S.SURESH
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
31.05.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.392/2019, THE COURT ON 31.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.392 & 683 of 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-II, North Paravur in O.P.
(Electricity) No.156 of 2014. The original
petition was filed by the revision petitioners in
CRP No.392 of 2019 (hereinafter called 'the
claimants'), being dissatisfied with the
compensation awarded towards the damage and loss
sustained due to the drawing of 400 KV lines
across their property by the Power Grid
Corporation of India Ltd (hereinafter called 'the
Corporation'). The essential facts are as under;
According to the claimants, they are in
ownership and possession of landed property
having an extent of 54.62 Ares comprised in Re-
Sy.No.373/8 of Rayamangalam Village. The land was
cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding
CRP Nos.392 & 683 of 2019
trees. In order to facilitate drawing of lines
for the smooth transmission of power, large
number of trees were cut from the claimants'
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
claimants 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 claimants
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 rubber trees
based on an assessment that 20 kilograms of latex
can be obtained from a rubber tree per year and
multiplying it with the price of one kilogram
CRP Nos.392 & 683 of 2019
after deducting 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
expenses. Similar method was adopted for
calculating the loss sustained due to the cutting
of cocoa trees. For reckoning, the compensation
amount payable, 8 was taken as the multiplier.
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 Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds as well as
Exts.C1 and C1(a) commission report and sketch.
The Advocate Commissioner had reported that the
petition schedule property is having proper road
access. On consideration of the said factors,
CRP Nos.392 & 683 of 2019
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
0.35 Ares (0.8645 cents). Accordingly, the
claimants were found entitled to compensation of
Rs.3,10,450/- with interest at the rate of 6% 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 land affected due to the drawing of
electric lines.
6. The contention of the Corporation that
CRP Nos.392 & 683 of 2019
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 6%
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
revision petitions filed by the claimants 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
CRP Nos.392 & 683 of 2019
shall forthwith be released to the claimants on
their filing appropriate application.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
