GOPINATHAN NAIR 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 12[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946** ## **CRP NO. 197 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2017 IN OPELE NO.188 OF** **2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **GOPINATHAN NAIR AGED 71 YEARS AGED 71, S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, PERUMBILLIYIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.RENJITH SRI.K.R.PRATHISH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 POWER GRIED CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MEVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** - **2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-17.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR.GP V.TEKCHAND ,SR.GP K.P.HARISH** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.06.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.646/2019, THE COURT ON 12.06.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946** **CRP NO. 646 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2017 IN OPELE NO.188 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-682030.** **BY ADV ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 GOPINATHAN NAIR, AGED 73 YEARS S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, PERUMBILLIYIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, PIN683545.** - **2 SPECIAL THAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-673017.** - **3 ADDL. LALITHA P.G. W/O LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, PERUMBILLIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE 683545.** - **4 ADDL. AJITHKUMAR S/O LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, PERUMBILLIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE 683 545. ADDL R3 & R4 BEING LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED R1, ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23-05-2022 IN IA NO. 1/2022 IN CRP NO. 646/2019. BY ADVS. P.C.HARIDAS SURESH V.S.** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **05.06.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.197/2018, THE COURT ON 12.06.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 12[th] 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.188 of 2011. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.197 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 21.20 Ares in Rayamangalam Village. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. In order to facilitate CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019 -4- 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.S.Renjith 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 rubber trees based on an assessment that 13 Kilograms of latex can be obtained from a rubber tree per year and multiplying it with the price of one kilogram. Based on such assessment, the net income was CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019 -5- fixed after deducting expenses. Likewise, the loss sustained due to cutting of yielding coconut palms was calculated by assessing the total number of nuts per year and multiplying it with the price of one coconut after deducting the immature falling and expenses. Similar method was adopted for calculating the loss sustained due to the cutting of areca palm and pepper vines. For reckoning the compensation amount payable, 8 was taken as the multiplier. Further, the court below fixed the compensation for the jackfruit, Macaranga peltala (vatta), anjili and other trees with reference to the Advocate Commissioner's report and based on a rough estimation. 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 Ext.A2 sale deed as well as Exts.C1 CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019 -6- and C1(g) commission report and plan. On consideration of the evidence on record, the land value was fixed at Rs.40,000/- per cent and awarded 50% of the land value as compensation for the affected area admeasuring 17.63 Ares (43.55 cents). Thus, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.23,46,400/- 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 for the land affected due to the drawing of electric lines. CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019 -7- 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. 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. Considering the fact that the CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019 -8- claimant is no more, the enhanced compensation and the amount, if any deposited pursuant to the order of this Court or otherwise, shall be released to the legal heirs of the claimant (Respondents 3 and 4 in CRP No.646 of 2019) on their filing appropriate application. **==> picture [123 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **V.G.ARUN** **JUDGE** Scl/