Thursday, 07, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Rini Jolly vs Power Grid Corporation Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 14339 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 14339 Ker
Judgement Date : 31 May, 2024

Kerala High Court

Rini Jolly vs Power Grid Corporation Of India 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. 514 OF 2018
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2017 IN OPELE
NO.84 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

               RINI JOLLY
               AGED 35 YEARS
               AGED 35, W/O.JOLLY, VILLIADATH HOUSE,PONNURUNNI
               KARA, (PUNJAPUTHUSSERY HOUSE),CHOORAKKOD 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
               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 21.05.2024,         ALONG WITH CRP.842/2019, THE COURT
ON 31.05.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.514/2018 & 842/2019

                                  -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. 842 OF 2019
AGAINST     THE    ORDER/JUDGMENT    DATED   28.11.2017   IN   OPELE
NO.84 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

            M/S.POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED,
            CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
            KAKKANADU, KOCHI- 682030.
RESPONDENT/S:

    1       RINI JOLLY,
            AGED 42 YEARS
            W/O.JOLLY, VILLIADATH HOUSE, PONNURUNNI KARA,
            (PUNJAPUTHISSERY HOUSE) CHOORAKKODU KARA,
            PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.
    2       SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA),
            POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
            CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-17.
            BY ADV SRI.K.C.ELDHO


        THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.05.2024,       ALONG WITH CRP.514/2018, THE COURT ON 31.05.2024,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.514/2018 & 842/2019

                                    -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.84 of 2011. The original

petition was filed by the revision petitioner in

CRP No.514 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 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 11.82 Ares comprised in Re-

Sy.Nos.362/4 and 362/5 in Block No.27 of CRP Nos.514/2018 & 842/2019

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

palms by assessing the average number of nuts per CRP Nos.514/2018 & 842/2019

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 like

mahagoni, teak, anjili, jack fruit tree 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.514/2018 & 842/2019

towards diminution in land value, the court below

relied on Ext.A2 sale deed as well as Exts.C1 and

C1(e) commission report and plan. On

consideration of the evidence on record, the land

value was fixed at Rs.2,50,000/- per cent and

awarded 50% of the land value as compensation for

the affected area admeasuring 9.49 Ares (23.44

cents). Accordingly, the claimant was found

entitled to compensation of Rs.35,53,700/- 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 CRP Nos.514/2018 & 842/2019

for the land affected due to the drawing of

electric lines.

6. The contention of the Corporation that

while adequate compensation was paid to the

claimant in compliance of the orders/directions

of the Government, the court below could not have

altered the compensation is liable to be rejected

since the court is not bound by the

directions/orders issued by the Government while

fixing the compensation. 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

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.514/2018 & 842/2019

shall forthwith be released to the claimant on

her filing appropriate application.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter