Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCivil revision petitions dismissed.

CRP Nos. 530/2018 & 702/2019, Jolly vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd

Case / Petition Number:CRP 530/2018; CRP 702/2019

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • V. G. Arun
Judgment Date
2024-06-03
Court Decision / Holding
Civil revision petitions are dismissed. The enhanced compensation fixed by the court below is to be paid within three months of receipt of a copy of this order. If any amount has been deposited pursuant to the order of this Court, the same shall be released to the claimant on filing an appropriate application.
Final Disposition
Civil revision petitions dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Jolly (CRP 530/2018)
  • Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd (CRP 702/2019)

Respondents

  • Power Grid Corporation of India Construction Area Office, Mavelipuram Colony, Kakkanad, Kochi-682030
  • Special Tahsildar, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, Chevarambalam, Kozhikode-673017
  • Jolly S/o Poulose, Punja Purathusssery House, Choorakkod Kara, Pattimattom Village, Kunnathunad Taluk-683545
  • Special Tahsildhar (TA) Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, Chevarambalam, Kozhikode-673017

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K. C. Eldho
  • • Aneesh James
  • • Jijo Thomas
  • • Mallenathan M.
  • • K. Sindhu Elias
  • • Rojo J. Thuruthipara

Counsels for Respondents

  • • K. C. Eldho
  • • Mallenathan M.

Case Synopsis & Summary

These civil revision petitions challenge an order of the Additional District Judge, North Paravur in O.P.(Electricity) No.80/2011, awarding compensation for trees cut and diminution in land value due to the drawing of 400 kV transmission lines by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. The claimant, Jolly, owns a 34.15-ares plot in Pattimattom Village, Kunnathunad Taluk, Ernakulam, where a large number of trees were felled for the transmission project, rendering portions of the land less usable and diminishing its value. The District Court computed compensation by valuing yields from various trees (coconut palms, areca, nutmeg, mango, pepper, teak, etc.), multiplying annual yields by prices, and deducting immature losses and expenses, with a multiplier of eight. For diminution in land value, the court relied on Ext.A2 sale deed and Exts.C1/C1(a) commission report and fixed land value at Rs.1,50,000 per cent, granting 50% of the land value for the affected 5.39 ares. It also observed that the approach aligns with the principles in KSEB v. Livisha (2007) and that government fixation guidelines are not binding on the court. The High Court dismisses the revisions, upholding the lower court’s method and final award, directing payment of enhanced compensation within three months, with deposited amounts to be released on application. The ruling underscores the court’s discretionary method in determining compensation for trees and land when power lines traverse private property, and affirms the credibility of the lower court’s calculations and reliance on precedent.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that the compensation awarded for loss of yield from trees and the diminution in land value due to the 400 kV transmission lines was inadequate. They sought enhanced valuation for the trees felled and the adverse impact on land value, arguing that the lower court’s method—calculating net income from yields and using Ext. A2, Exts. C1/C1(a) for land value—should reflect the true damage. They also pressed for appropriate consideration of comparable land values and for realization of full compensation in line with precedents.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defended the lower court’s approach, arguing that the method of computation and the 50% land-value grant for the affected area were just and proper. They asserted that the court was not bound to follow government land-value guidelines and that the 8% interest awarded was appropriate. They contended that the reliance on precedent such as KSEB v. Livisha supports the court’s discretion in assessing compensation and that no interference is warranted with the well-reasoned order.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
KSEB v. Livisha[(2007) 6 SCC 792]PositiveThe court cites this Apex Court decision to justify the factors considered in determining compensation, including factors for land value and the extent of land impact, and approves the lower court’s approach to compensation.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against CRP Nos. 530/2018 & 702/2019, Jolly vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946** **CRP NO. 530 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2017 IN OPELE NO.80 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **JOLLY AGED 43 YEARS AGED 45,S/O POULOSE,PUNJAPUPTHUSSERY HOUSE,CHOORAKKOD KARA,PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNAD TALUK,ERNAKULAM-683562. 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-682030. 2 SPECIAL TAHSILDARLA POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.CHEVARAMBALAM,KOZHIKODE-17.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR.PP.K.P.HARISH;SR.GP.V.TEKCHAND** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.05.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.702/2019, THE COURT ON 03.06.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.530/2018 & 702/2019 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946 CRP NO. 702 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2017 IN OPELE NO.80 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030** **BY ADV ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 JOLLY S/O. PAULOSE, PUNJAPURATHUSSERY HOUSE, CHOORAKKOD KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK-683 545** - **2 SPECIAL THASILDHAR (TA) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CHEVARAMBLAMA,KOZHIKODE-673 017** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.ELDHO GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MALLENATHAN.M.** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.05.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.702/2019, THE COURT ON 03.06.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.530/2018 & 702/2019 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 03[rd] day of June, 2024 These revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge, North Paravur in O.P. (Electricity) No.80 of 2011. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.530 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 his property by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd (hereinafter called 'the Corporation'). The essential facts are as under; According to the claimant, he is in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 34.15 Ares comprised in Re-Sy.Nos.304/5 and 304/6 in Block No.27 of Pattimattom Village CRP Nos.530/2018 & 702/2019 -4- 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.530/2018 & 702/2019 -5- 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 other yielding trees like nutmeg, mango 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 trees like teak, anjili, drumstick, Macaranga peltata (vatta) and 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. CRP Nos.530/2018 & 702/2019 -6- 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.A2 sale deed as well as Exts.C1 and C1(a) commission report and plan. Taking note of the fact that the petition schedule property is having proper road access and considering other evidence on record, the land value was fixed at Rs.1,50,000/- per cent and awarded 50% of the land value as compensation for the affected area admeasuring 5.39 Ares (13.313 cents). Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.20,63,000/- 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, CRP Nos.530/2018 & 702/2019 -7- 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 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 8% 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. CRP Nos.530/2018 & 702/2019 -8- 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 shall forthwith be released to the claimant on his filing appropriate application. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN** **JUDGE** Scl/