Bhargavan v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 29TH** **AGRAHAYANA, 1945** ## **CRP NO. 486 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.197 OF 2006 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,KOLLAM** **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **BHARGHAVAN AGED 76 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN , N.B MANDIRAM, KIZHAKKUM BHAGAM MURI, CHITHARA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK BY ADVS. SRI.ARUN BABU SRI.G.HARIPRASAD** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD PONGUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM RPERESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 695001** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION** **ON 20.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP No.486 of 2015 -2- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 20[th] day of December, 2023 This revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-II, Kollam in O.P.(Electricity) No.197 of 2006. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner, being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded towards the damage and loss sustained due to the drawing of 400 KV High Tension Transmission Lines across his property by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd (hereinafter called 'the Corporation'). The essential facts are as under; The petitioner is in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 4.72 Acres in Chithara Village. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the petitioner, to facilitate drawing of the lines and smooth transmission of CRP No.486 of 2015 -3- power, large number of trees were cut from his 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 by the petitioner, only an amount of Rs.12,45,584/- was paid as compensation towards the value of yielding and non-yielding trees cut. Surprisingly, no compensation was granted for diminution in land value. Hence, the original petition was filed, seeking enhanced compensation towards the value of trees cut and diminution in land value. 2. The court below found that the compensation fixed by the Corporation is not in consonance with the findings in _**Airports Authority of India** v._ _**Satyagopal Roy [(2002) 3 SCC 527]**_ and _**KSEB** v._ _**Livisha [(2007) 6 SCC 792]**_ and is therefore not just and proper. Thereafter, based on the depositions made by the petitioner, CRP No.486 of 2015 -4- Deputy Rubber Production Commissioner, Kottarakkara, the Agricultural Officer, Chithara, the Forest Range Officer, Aryankavu in another case of similar nature and the Special Revenue Officer attached to the Corporation, the yield of the trees and its value were assessed and fixed. For ascertaining the diminution in land value, the court below referred to the evidence tendered by the petitioner and PW7, the purchaser of property in Ext.A10 sale deed. The court also relied on the Advocate Commissioner's report and plan. Thus, based on such fixation, Rs.6,29,100/was granted as compensation for diminution of land value and Rs.35,29,671/- for the loss suffered due to the cutting of yielding and nonyielding trees. Thus, the final compensation was fixed at Rs.41,58,771/-. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below had grossly erred in assessing the value of trees and in fixing the CRP No.486 of 2015 -5- diminution in land value. It is submitted that , after accepting the depositions made by the Agricultural Officer, Deputy Rubber Production Commissioner and the Forest Range Officer in evidence, the court below made substantial reduction from the yield stated by them, without assigning any reason. Likewise, even after accepting the report of the Advocate Commissioner that the petitioner's property is comparable to Ext.A10 sale deed, which is also situated near to a road in an important locality, the land value was fixed at Rs.15,000/- per cent as against Rs.40,000/- per cent in Ext.A10 sale deed. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that the well considered order of the court below warrants no interference. 5. Having carefully considered the contentions, I find substantial merit in the argument put forth by the Counsel for the CRP No.486 of 2015 -6- petitioner. As rightly contended, after accepting the depositions of the Agricultural Officer, Deputy Rubber Production Commissioner and Forest Range Officer in evidence, the court below has fixed the annual yield and the price of various agricultural products at deviance from the statements of the experts. Moreover, no reason is assigned for such deviation also. Further, the court below has adopted 8 as the multiplier which is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in _**Sk. Imambi v. Collector**_ _**[(2011) 11 SCC 639]**_ , the relevant portion of which reads as under; “ _6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the multiplier should not be less than 14 adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer. We cannot accept the contention of the appellant. Having regard to the consistent view taken by this Court, we are of the view that the High Court was right in holding that the multiplier should be 10. This Court has repeatedly held that the standard multiplier should be 10; and that in special circumstances_ CRP No.486 of 2015 -7- _based upon specific evidence regarding the nature, standard, condition of the orchard, the Court may apply a higher multiplier of 12 or 13 or a lower multiplier of 8.”_ As such, the court below ought to have adopted 10 as the multiplier. 6. With respect to the fixation of land value also, the court below went wrong in fixing the land value at Rs.15,000/- per cent in spite of the Advocate Commissioner reporting that the property covered by Ext.A10 is a comparable land and that, the petitioner's property is situated in an important locality and near to a road. For the aforementioned reasons, I find the court below to have erred in fixing the value of trees as well as the land value. Being so, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration and determination of just and proper compensation, CRP No.486 of 2015 -8- taking into account all relevant factors. The original petition being of the year 2006, the court below shall take earnest efforts to dispose of the matter within four months of receipt of a copy of this order. **Sd/-** **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/