Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd v A.A. Thomas; Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd v Shincy Thomas

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 16TH MAGHA, 1945 CRP NO. 51 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 57/2010 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, AREACODE.P.O., UGRAPURAM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADVS. E.M.MURUGAN SRI.P.RAKESH ## **RESPONDENT/S:** A.A.THOMAS AGED ABOUT 47, S/O.ABRAHAM, ANITHOTTATHIL (H), KUPPAYAKODE.P.O., INGAPUZHA AMSOM DESAM, KOZHIKODE-673001. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP 52/2019 THE COURT ON 05.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRP Nos.51 & 52 of 2019 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 16TH MAGHA, 1945** **CRP NO. 52 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 58/2010 OF ADDITIONAL** **DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, AREACODE PO, UGRAPURAM, ERNAD THALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV E.M.MURUGAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** SHINCY THOMAS, AGED 44 YEARS W/O.THOMAS, ANITHOTTATHIL (H), KUPPAYAKODE P.O., INGAPUZHA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE-673001. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **20.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.51/2019, THE COURT ON 05.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.51 & 52 of 2019 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 05[th] day of February, 2024 The revision petitioner, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd ('the Corporation' for short) is aggrieved by the enhanced compensation ordered to be paid to the respondents towards diminution in land value, consequent upon the drawing of 400 KV Electric Lines across the respondents' properties by the Corporation. The essential facts are as under; The respondents, husband and wife, are in ownership and possession of adjacent properties admeasuring 23 cents and 10 cents respectively in Re.Sy.No.57/11 of Eangappuzha Village in Kozhikode District. The Corporation drew 400 KV Electric Lines over the properties of the respondents for completing the Mysore-Kozhikode sector. For the purpose of drawing the lines, yielding trees were cut down. CRP Nos.51 & 52 of 2019 -4- Thereupon, the respondents filed original petitions claiming compensation towards value of trees cut as well as diminution in land value. Even though enhanced compensation was awarded, the respondents were not satisfied with the quantum of enhancement and hence, filed civil revision petitions before this Court. Finding merit in the grievance raised, the civil revision petitions were allowed and the cases remanded to the court below, with a direction to ascertain the yield and to consider all the components while deciding the diminution in land value. Accordingly, the claims were reconsidered. In view of the statement filed by the respondents to the effect that no more compensation towards value of improvements is sought, further enhancement was confined to the diminution in land value alone. CRP Nos.51 & 52 of 2019 -5- 2. Heard learned Counsel appearing on either side. 3. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Corporation contended that the land value fixed is not based on legal evidence. Further, the additional compensation awarded is unreasonable and the diminution in land value, far in excess of the percentage fixed by the Government. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents argued that the enhancement is reasonable and has been granted after considering all relevant factors. 4. In support of the claim for diminution in land value, the respondents had produced Exts.A9 to A12 documents. The court below refused to rely on those documents, finding those properties to be situated away from the properties of the respondents and in a more important locality. Instead, reliance is placed on the Advocate Commissioner's report which showed that the properties of the respondents CRP Nos.51 & 52 of 2019 -6- are situated near to a village centre and there are several educational, religious, commercial and Government institutions within a radius of 1.5 kilometres. The court below also took note of the fact that for nearby properties abutting the Panchayat road, the land value was fixed at Rs.35,000/- per cent and fixed the land value of the respondents' properties at Rs.40,000/- per cent in view of the fact that the properties not only abut the Panchayat road, but are situated in a more commercially important area. It was also found that, going by the manner in which the lines were drawn, the properties as a whole were effected and hence, the diminution in land value was fixed at 50%. 5. By the impugned order, following the decision of this Court in _**P.Raghavan v. KSEB [CRP No.3256 of 2001],**_ the court below directed the Corporation to pay additional compensation of Rs.4,22,760/- in O.P.(Ele) No.57 of 2010, against CRP Nos.51 & 52 of 2019 -7- which CRP No.51 of 2019 is filed and Rs.1,72,000/- in O.P.(Ele) No.58 of 2010, which is the subject matter of challenge in CRP No.52 of 2019. The additional compensation was directed to be paid to the respondents with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 17.02.2009 till the date of payment, along with costs, within two months from the date of impugned order. On careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the compensation towards diminution in land value was fixed based on factors like situs of the land, the extent to which the land is adversely effected and the consequent diminution in the value of the land. Although contention is raised that the Government having fixed 15% as diminution of land value for the properties in that area, the court below could not have fixed the higher percentage is liable to be rejected since the court, while assessing the damage sustained and fixing the compensation, is not bound by the guidelines CRP Nos.51 & 52 of 2019 **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** issued by the Government. For the aforementioned reasons, I am of the definite opinion that there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order for this Court to interfere in exercise of the power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the result, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. **==> picture [51 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/