High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-12-20Civil revision petition allowed; impugned order...

Khadeeja Beevi vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd

Case / Petition Number:CRP No. 464 of 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V. G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2023-12-20
Court Decision / Holding: 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, taking into account all relevant factors. The original petition, filed in 2005, should be disposed of within four months of receipt of a copy of this order.
Final Disposition: Civil revision petition allowed; impugned order set aside; remanded for fresh determination of just compensation within four months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Khadeeja Beevi, W/o Thajudeen, Darusalam, Chozhakkode P.O., Thinkalikkarikom Village, Kulathupuzha, Pathanapuram Taluk

Respondents

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, Pongumoodu, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its Managing Director

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Arun Babu
• Sri. G. Hariprasad

Case Synopsis & Summary

Khadeeja Beevi, the revision petitioner, challenges the order of the Additional District Judge, Kollam, in OP (Electricity) No. 344 of 2005, which awarded compensation for the drawing of a 400 kV high-tension transmission line across her land. The Kerala High Court heard CRP No. 464 of 2015 on 20 December 2023. The petitioner owns about 50 cents of land in Thinkalkarikkam Village. The construction affected the land by felling trees and diminishing its value, but the lower court awarded only a portion of compensation—Rs. 8,11,379 for tree loss and Rs. 1,93,025 for diminution in land value—after relying on depositions of an Agricultural Officer, Rubber Production Controller, Forest Range Officer, and an Advocate Commissioner (Ext.A3–A6, Exts.A9–A11). The petitioner contends the court erred in valuing trees by deviating from expert depositions without reason, and in fixing land value at Rs. 7,000 per cent despite a sale deed indicating Rs. 11,718.75 per cent. It is argued that the court improperly applied a multiplier of 8, contrary to the Supreme Court’s standard multiplier of 10 (with scope for 12–13 or 8 in special circumstances) per Sk. Imambi v. Collector. The High Court finds merit in these contentions, sets aside the impugned order, and remands for fresh determination of just and proper compensation, taking into account all relevant factors, with a four-month deadline.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Standard multiplier for land acquisition compensation is 10; higher or lower multipliers may be applied in special circumstances (e.g., 12–13 or 8).
Multiplier should be 10 as per Sk. Imambi v. Collector (2011) 11 SCC 639; lower multipliers are not generally permissible unless special facts justify them.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the lower court committed errors in fixing the value of trees by accepting depositions of several officials yet departing from their statements without reason. It emphasizes that Exts.A9–A11 and the Advocate Commissioner’s report should have yielded higher tree yield values and that the land-value fixation was flawed, especially given Ext.A8’s sale deed showing higher per-cent values than the trial court’s Rs. 7,000/-. The court’s choice of an 8 multiplier contradicts Sk. Imambi’s ruling that the standard multiplier is 10, with possible variations only in special circumstances. The petitioner prays for remand for fresh assessment of both tree-value and diminution in land value, considering expert evidence and market comparables, and ultimately an enhanced compensation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent argues that the impugned order was well-reasoned and properly based on the depositions and evidence on record, including Exts A3–A6 and A9–A11, and that the existing compensation is just and based on legal conventions. It contends there is no legal or factual basis to interfere with the trial court’s method or results and requests that the petition be dismissed. It maintains that the four-month remand period is adequate for a reassessment only if warranted by the court’s further findings.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Arya Antharjanam v. KSEB, Thiruvananthapuram	AIR 1996 Ker. 309	Mentioned Only	Cited by the trial court in the context of valuation; not treated as governing authority in the High Court’s reasoning.
Narayanan v. Dist. Executive Magistrate	2008(4) MLJ 1024	Mentioned Only	Cited among precedents; no distinct treatment by the High Court beyond reference.
KSEB v Varghese Thomas	1961 KLT 238	Mentioned Only	Referenced for related principles; not distinctly overruled or distinguished here.
Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy	(2002) 3 SCC 527	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of comparative precedents; High Court does not primarily rely on it in its decision.
KSEB v Livisha	(2007) 6 SCC 792	Mentioned Only	Cited among precedents; no explicit treatment beyond mention.
Sk. Imambi v. Collector	(2011) 11 SCC 639	Positive	Court endorses the proposition that multiplier should be 10; condemns the lower court’s use of 8 as erroneous.

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 Khadeeja Beevi 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 29TH** **AGRAHAYANA, 1945** **CRP NO. 464 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2015 IN OPELE NO.344 OF 2005 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **KHADEEJA BEEVI AGED 57 YEARS W/O. THAJUDEEN,DARUSALAM,CHOZHIAKKODE P.O, THINKALKKARIKOM VILLAGE, KULATHUPUZHA,PATHANAPURAM TALUK BY ADVS. SRI.ARUN BABU SRI.G.HARIPRASAD** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD PONGUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 695 001** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION** **ON 20.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP No.464 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-I, Kollam in O.P.(Electricity) No.344 of 2005. 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 her 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 50 cents in Thinkalkarikkam 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.464 of 2015 -3- power, large number of trees were cut from her 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.1,92,869/- 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. For ascertaining the value of trees, the court below referred to the decisions in _**Arya Antharjanam v. KSEB, Thiruvananthapuram [AIR 1996 Ker.309], Narayanan v. Dist. Executive Magistrate [2008(4) MLJ 1024], KSEB v Varghese Thomas [1961 KLT 238]**_ , _**Airports Authority of India** v._ _**Satyagopal Roy [(2002) 3 SCC 527]**_ and _**KSEB** v._ CRP No.464 of 2015 -4- ## _**Livisha [(2007) 6 SCC 792].**_ Thereafter, based on Ext.A3 series to A6 and Exts.A9 to A11, which are the copies of the depositions of the Agricultural Officer, Rubber Production Controller and Forest Range Officer in another case of similar nature as also the petitioner's testimony, the yield of the trees and its value were assessed and fixed. For ascertaining the diminution in land value, the court below considered the situs of the land, nature of cultivation and the extent of the lines drawn. Based on such fixation, Rs.1,93,025/- was granted as compensation for diminution of land value and Rs.8,11,379/- for the loss suffered due to the cutting of yielding trees. Thus, the final compensation was fixed at Rs.8,11,535/-, after deducting the compensation already paid. 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.464 of 2015 -5- diminution in land value. It is submitted that, after accepting Exts.A9 to A11 in evidence, the court below made substantial reduction from the yield stated by the Agricultural Officer, Rubber Production Controller and the Forest Range Officer, without assigning any reason. Likewise, even after accepting the report of the Advocate Commissioner that the petitioner's property is situated in an important locality and a 3 metre wide concrete road passes through its western side, the land value was fixed at Rs.7,000/- per cent as against Rs.11,718.75/- per cent in Ext.A8 sale deed, pertaining to the transaction of a comparable property. 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 CRP No.464 of 2015 -6- argument put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner. As rightly contended, after accepting the depositions of the Agricultural Officer, Rubber Production Controller 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_ CRP No.464 of 2015 -7- _should be 10; and that in special circumstances 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.7,000/- per cent after finding that the petitioner's property is situated in an important locality and near to a road. In such circumstances, the court below was bound to give specific reasons for fixing the land value at Rs.7,000/- per cent. 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 CRP No.464 of 2015 -8- determination of just and proper compensation, taking into account all relevant factors. The original petition being of the year 2005, 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/