Isac A.C v. Deputy General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1946 CRP NO. 483 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OP NO.244 OF 2010 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **ISAC.A.C AGED 58 YEARS S/O.CHACKO, ARAKKATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, P.O.VELANKODE, KODENCHERY VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADV C.P.PEETHAMBARAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., AREEKODE P.O., UGRAPURAM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 639.** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **07.03.2024, THE COURT ON 22.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP No.483 of 2019 -2- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 22[nd] day of May, 2024 This revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-I, Kozhikode in O.P.(Electricity) No.244 of 2010. 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 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 34 cents in Kodencherry Village of Kozhikode Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. In order to facilitate CRP No.483 of 2019 -3- drawing of 400 KV electric lines for the smooth transmission of power in the Mysore-Kozhikode sector, large number of trees were cut from the property. According to the petitioner, the drawing of high tension lines had rendered the land underneath and adjacent useless, resulting in diminution of the land value. In spite of the huge loss suffered by the petitioner, only small amount was granted as compensation. Hence, the petitioner filed original petition, seeking enhanced compensation towards the value of trees cut and diminution in land value. 2. Therefore, being dissatisfied with the enhancement of compensation awarded by the court below, petitioner preferred civil revision petition and the same was allowed by this Court and the case remanded back with a direction to determine yield from each tree and to consider all components of diminution in land value including prevailing market price of the land and CRP No.483 of 2019 -4- any new factor which may be brought to the notice of the court by the petitioner. After remand, the petitioner filed a statement before the court below clarifying that he is not claiming additional compensation for loss in value of improvements. Hence, the court below considered the claim for enhanced compensation towards diminution in land value alone and passed the impugned order. 3. After remand, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended before the court below that the land value was improperly fixed on the basis of fair value extract and this resulted in the fixation of land value as well as the percentage of diminution being on the lower side. It was contended that the land value fixed in O.P.(Ele) No.136 of 2010 and connected cases should be considered for fixing the land value of the petition schedule property. The properties involved in Exts.A15 and A16 documents were CRP No.483 of 2019 -5- pointed out as comparable lands and prayer made to enhance the compensation accordingly. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation argued that the petition schedule property is a wetland without direct road frontage even to the Panchayat road and access to the property is through a mud road. Therefore, the land value fixed for plots abutting PWD and Panchayat roads cannot be adopted for fixing the land value of the petition schedule property. According to the learned Counsel, the land value was fixed after considering the locational features and civic amenities available and any further enhancement will be excessive and improper. 5. Although petitioner relied on Exts. A15 and A16 documents, the court below refused to accept the properties involved in the said documents as comparable lands. It was found that, while those properties are garden lands as well CRP No.483 of 2019 -6- as commercial sites, the petition schedule property is a reclaimed wetland and is situated near to Velamkkode junction. Similarly, the Omassery Town is also situated at a distance of 8 Kilometres from the petition schedule property and the civic amenities are available within a radius of 1 to 1½ Kms. Moreover, the petitioner's property is situated at a distance of 75 metres from the PWD road, which is connected through a 3 metre wide mud road. The court below also found that 31.75 cents out of a total extent of 34 cents is affected due to the drawing of electric lines. On consideration of the above factors along with the locational features and on comparison of the petition schedule property with the properties involved in Exts.A15 and A16 documents, the court below fixed the land value at Rs.20,000/- per cent, as against Rs.8,000/per cent fixed earlier. Taking into account the fact that a substantial area of the property CRP No.483 of 2019 -7- falls under the extent covered by the corridor, the court below has increased the percentage of diminution from 20% of the land value to 25% after remand. A table containing the compensation thus awarded is appended below; |**Sl**<br>**No**|**Case**<br>**No.**|**Affected**<br>**area**|**Land**<br>**value**<br>**per cent**|**Percentage**<br>**of**<br>**diminution**|**Compensation**<br>**payable**|**Compensation**<br>**paid**|**Balance**<br>**Compensation**<br>**due**| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |**1**|**OP**<br>**244/10**|**31.75**|**20,000**|**25%**|**68,750**|**22,000**|**46,750**| In view of the decision of this Court in _**P.Raghavan v. KSEB [CRP No.3256 of 2001]**_ , interest on the additional compensation was directed to be paid at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of cutting of trees till the date of payment. 6. Heard learned Counsel appearing on either side. 7. On careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the compensation due towards diminution in land value was fixed based CRP No.483 of 2019 -8- 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 affirming 25% of the land value as compensation for the land affected due to the drawing of electric lines. As such, there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, warranting this Court's interference in exercise of the revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For the aforementioned reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed. If any amount is deposited pursuant to the order of this Court or otherwise, the same shall forthwith be released to the petitioner on his filing appropriate application. The entire enhanced compensation shall be paid to the CRP No.483 of 2019 -9- petitioner within three months of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/