Kerala High Court
The Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs Muralidharan Nair on 8 November, 2024
2024:KER:83885
CRP Nos.726/2019, 412/2018
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946
CRP NO. 726 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2017 IN OP(ELE) NO.87 OF 2011
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030
BY ADV ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT 2:
1 MURALIDHARAN NAIR
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O.K THANGAPPAN PILLAI, KUZHIKKATTIL (KUUZHYKKATTIL)
HOSUE, ALLAPRA AREA, ALLAPRA.P.O, VENGOLA VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, PIN-683556
2 SPECIAL THASILDHAR(LA)
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE-673017
2024:KER:83885
CRP Nos.726/2019, 412/2018
-2-
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RENJITH
SRI.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD)
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SRI. T. JAYAN
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.11.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.412/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:83885
CRP Nos.726/2019, 412/2018
-3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946
CRP NO. 412 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2017 IN OP(ELE) NO.87 OF 2011
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
MURALIDHARAN NAIR
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. K. THANGAPPAN PILLAI,
KUZHIKKATTIL (KUZHYKKATTIL) HOUSE, ALLAPRA P.O,
VENGOLA VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, PERUMBAVOOR
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RENJITH
SRI.P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM
COLONY,KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682 030.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
(LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA
2024:KER:83885
CRP Nos.726/2019, 412/2018
-4-
LTD.CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-17
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SRI. T. JAYAN. ADV ROJO J. THURUTHIPARA
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.11.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.726/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:83885
CRP Nos.726/2019, 412/2018
-5-
O R D E R
(Dated this the 8th day of November 2024)
[CRP Nos.726/2019, 412/2018]
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 1 st respondent/claimant,
consequent upon the drawing of 400 KV electric lines across his
property by the Corporation.
2. The facts of the case are follows; In order to
facilitate the drawing of lines for the smooth transmission of
power, a large number of trees were cut from the 1 st
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, a meager amount was paid to the 1 st
2024:KER:83885
CRP Nos.726/2019, 412/2018
respondent as compensation. Hence, the original petition was
filed, seeking enhanced compensation.
3. The 1st respondent claimed Rs.1,50,00,000/- towards
the diminution and the utility of the land and the value of the
trees cut and removed from the property. A perusal of the
impugned order shows that the Trial Court has assessed the loss
sustained due to the cutting of yielding trees by assessing the
average number of yields per year and multiplying it with the
value of one, after deducting the immature falling and expenses.
For determining the compensation amount payable, the trial
court, relying on the decision reported in KSEB v. Livisha,
( 2007 ) 6 SCC 792 applied 8 as the multiplier. For some
other trees, compensation was fixed based on the value of trees.
4. Thus, the compensation fixed for different trees is
shown as in the table mentioned below:
2024:KER:83885
CRP Nos.726/2019, 412/2018
Type of Trees Nos. Compensation arrived with
calculation (in Rs.)
Rubber Trees 261 Rs.40,71,600/-
(261 x 13kg x 200 x 8 =
Rs.54,28,800/- less 25% to be
deducted towards expenditure.)
Other trees Rs.3000/-
Total Rs.40,74,600/-
5. In para. 10 of the decision reported in KSEB (Supra) it
was held that;
10. The situs of the land, the distance
between the high voltage electricity line
laid thereover, the extent of the line
thereon as also the fact as to whether the
high voltage line passes over a small tract
of land or through the middle of the land
and other similar relevant factors in our
opinion would be determinative. The
value of the land would also be a
relevant factor. The owner of the land
furthermore, in a given situation may lose
his substantive right to use the property
for the purpose for which the same was
meant to be used.
6. As per B25 fair value notification, the value of the
property in Sy. No.416/8 is Rs.1,00,000/- per Are. The Commissioner
2024:KER:83885
CRP Nos.726/2019, 412/2018
opined that the value is Rs.3,00,000/-. The Trial Court fixed the
value at Rs.2,00,000/-. Total 98.43 cents of property was injuriously
affected, thus the total value of land injuriously affected is
Rs.1,96,86,000/- (98.43 x 2,00,000). The percentage of diminution of
land value is taken as 50%, so the value of land injuriously affected
is Rs.98,43,000/-.
7. The Trial Court awarded a total compensation of
Rs.1,39,17,600/-. The 1st respondent has already received an amount
of Rs.11,22,448/- towards compensation. Therefore, the balance
compensation payable is Rs.1,27,95,152/- rounded to
Rs.1,27,95,200/- with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of
cutting of trees till the date of realisation. Being so, this Court finds
the procedure adopted by the Trial Court to be just and proper.
On going through the impugned order, it is seen that the
compensation fixed for the injurious affection of land and the value
fixed for the trees cut and removed is just and proper; therefore,
CRP No.726/2019 fails and is dismissed.
2024:KER:83885
CRP Nos.726/2019, 412/2018
CRP No.412/2018 is filed by the claimant for enhancement
of the compensation.
I have gone through the impugned judgment, and I am of
the opinion that the amount of compensation granted is adequate
and reasonable.
Therefore, CRP No.412/2018 is dismissed.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI
JUDGE
JS
