High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-18Civil Revision Petitions dismissed; enhanced co...

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v Abdul Azeez; Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v K.J. Mathews; Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v Muhammed Haji (CRP Nos. 184, 230 & 236 of 2018)

Case / Petition Number:CRP Nos.184, 230 & 236 of 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2024-03-18
Court Decision / Holding: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed; enhanced compensation upheld for trees and land value diminution; respondents to be paid the enhanced amounts within three months.
Final Disposition: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed; enhanced compensation upheld; payment within three months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Respondents

Abdul Azeez S/O.Kuttiassan
K.J. Mathews S/O.K.P. Jacob
Muhammed Haji S/O.Abdulla Haji

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. E. M. Murugan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. V. V. Surendan
• Sri. P. A. Harish

Case Synopsis & Summary

These Civil Revision Petitions arise from enhanced compensation awarded to landowners for trees felled and land diminution due to 400 kV transmission lines laid by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. in Kozhikode district as part of the Mysore–Kozhikode corridor. The respondents filed original petitions for compensation for value of trees and land diminution; although an initial enhanced compensation was granted, the petitioners were dissatisfied and the petitions were remanded for fresh consideration. On remand, the Additional District Judge enhanced compensation under three heads: trees cut; diminution in land value; and the grand total. The court’s reasoning reflected assessment of locational factors such as soil type, proximity to roads, and access, as well as the impact of the 400 kV line and the manner of drawing it across the petition schedule properties. It relied on the court’s own prior decisions and the Petronet v. Thresiamma precedent to calibrate deductions for crop yield (rubber deduction reduced from 60% to 40%; pepper, arecanut and coconut deductions around 43.75%), and approved an annuity-based treatment for non-yielding trees (50%). The Corporation contended lack of legal evidence for land value fixation and argued Exts. A11/A12 were not similar to the petition properties, while respondents argued the enhancement was reasonable after considering all relevant factors. The High Court found no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the revisions, directing payment of the enhanced sums within three months.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Civil Procedure, Section 115

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Not bound by Government guidelines in assessing damages
Annuity method for calculating compensation for non-yielding trees (referenced as a method adopted)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contended that the court below erred in granting enhanced compensation for the value of trees, especially after finding no cogent evidence on the age, yield, or future yield parameters as per the Special Tahsildar’s assessment. It was argued that fixation of land value could not be grounded on Exts. A11 and A12 because those documents were not similar or similarly situated to the petition properties, and that the court below went beyond legal evidence in increasing compensation. It was urged that the court was not bound by any Government guidelines; the court’s reliance on the annuity method was improper to justify the level of enhancement and the alleged excess diminution in land value (above government percentages) could not withstand scrutiny under Section 115 CPC. The petitioners urged a reexamination of land-value evidence and questioned the overall quantum on grounds of evidentiary inadequacy and misapplied benchmarks.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the enhancement was justified after thorough consideration of all relevant factors, including land type, location, access, proximity to the road, and the extent to which the transmission lines adversely affected the properties. They contended that the court below appropriately evaluated the evidence and followed established precedents, such as Petronet v. Thresiamma, to calibrate yield deductions (rubber 40%, pepper/areacanut/coconut around 43.75%) and adopted an annuity-based approach for non-yielding trees, with appropriate adjustments. They asserted the land-value fixation, while guided by comparable considerations and the Advocate Commissioner’s report, reflected the true impact on the properties and the situs of the land, and was not bound to Exts. A11/A12 which were not similarly situated. They highlighted that the Government percentage for diminution of land value is merely a guideline, not a binding ceiling, and that the total compensation adequately accounts for both trees and land value diminution.”},

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Petronet v. Thresiamma	2012 (1) KLT 959	Positive	Cited and followed by the court to calibrate yield deductions (rubber reduced from 60% to 40%; others at 43.75%), informing the enhancement framework.

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 Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v Abdul Azeez; Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v K.J. Mathews; Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v Muhammed Haji (CRP Nos. 184, 230 & 236 of 2018) 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 18[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945 CRP NO. 184 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.10.2017 IN OPELE NO.333 OF 2010 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER, UGRAPURAM, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.E.M.MURUGAN** **RESPONDENT/S:** **ABDUL AZEEZ S/O.KUTTIASSAN, PARASSERIMANNIL HOUSE, MANALVAYAL, P.O., MAYILALLAMPARA, PUTHUPPADI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT673001.** **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.230/2018, 236/2018, THE COURT ON 18.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.184, 230 & 236 of 2018 -2- **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945 CRP NO. 230 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.10.2017 IN OPELE NO.227 OF 2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE I REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. REP.BY ITS ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER, UGRAPURAM, AREACODE MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV SRI.E.M.MURUGAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **K.J. MATHEWS S/O. K.P.JACOB, KIZHAKKEKUNNATH, P.O.PUTHUPPADI, PUTHUPPADI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SURENDRAN V.V. HARISH P.A.** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP 184/2018 AND 236/2018, THE COURT ON 18.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.184, 230 & 236 of 2018 -3- **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945 CRP NO. 236 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.10.2017 IN OPELE NO.256 OF 2010 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER, UGRAPURAM, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV SRI.E.M.MURUGAN** **RESPONDENT/S:** **MUHAMMED HAJI S/O. ABDULLA HAJI, NARIKKATTUMMAL HOUSE,ELETTIL VATTOLI P.O, PUTHUPPADI, PUTHUPPADI VILLAGE,KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SURENDRAN V.V. HARISH P.A.** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP 184/2018 AND 230/2018, THE COURT ON 18.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.184, 230 & 236 of 2018 -4- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 18[th] day of March, 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 the value of the trees cut as also 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 Corporation drew 400 KV lines over the property of the respondents for completing the Mysore-Kozhikode sector. For the purpose of drawing the lines, yielding trees like arecanut, rubber, coconut trees and pepper veins had to be cut down. Thereupon, the respondents filed original petitions claiming compensation towards value of trees cut as well as diminution in land CRP Nos.184, 230 & 236 of 2018 -5- 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 consider the matters afresh. Accordingly, the claims were reconsidered and further enhancement granted towards value of trees cut and diminution in land value. 2. By the impugned order, the court below directed to pay additional compensation in each case under the following heads; ## **Total compensation** |**Total compensation**|**Total compensation**|**Total compensation**|**Total compensation**|**Total compensation**| |---|---|---|---|---| |Case Nos.|Compensati on towards cutting of trees|Compensation towards non yielding trees and others|Diminution of land value|Grand total| |OP 227/2009|31030.56|3862.5|86800|121693.06| |OP 256/2010|248559.52|-|274000|522559.52| |OP 333/2010|95068.84|185|117600|212853.84| CRP Nos.184, 230 & 236 of 2018 -6- As far as yield of trees is concerned, the court below found the deduction of 60% towards cultivation expenses of rubber to be excessive and following the decision of this Court in _**Petronet v. Thresiamma [2012 (1) KLT 959]**_ , reduced the deduction to 40%. In the case of pepper, areacanut and coconut, the deduction of 43.75% is found to be reasonable. The court below has also granted 50% of the compensation already paid as additional compensation towards cocoa, jack fruit and the non-yielding trees, following the annuity method. 3. Although respondents had relied on Exts.A11 and A12 documents for the purpose of fixing land value, the court below found that the property involved in Exts.A11 and A12 documents and the petition schedule properties are not similar or similarly situated, considering the proximity to the PWD road, distance between the properties and the nature of transactions in CRP Nos.184, 230 & 236 of 2018 -7- Exts.A11 and A12 documents. Instead, reliance was placed on the Advocate Commissioner's report and plan to hold that the properties in OP Nos.227/2009 and 333/2010 are garden lands and the property in OP No.227/2009 is situated at a distance of about 300 metres away from NH212 as also the West Puthuppadi-Ambalakandi tarred Panchayat road abuts the property. The court below also took note of the fact that the property in OP No.256/2010 is situated on the southern side of the NH 212 and similarly the property in OP No.333/2010, is at a distance of about 800 metres from NH212. In the case of OP No.333/2010, the court below found that the petition schedule property is situated on the side of Puthuppadi-Ottakkara tarred Panchayat road. The court below also took note of the fact that, going by the manner in which the lines were drawn, the properties were substantially affected. Based on the said findings, the land CRP Nos.184, 230 & 236 of 2018 -8- value was fixed at Rs.35,000/- per cent in OP Nos.227/2009 and 333/2010 and Rs.50,000/- per cent in O.P.No.256/2010. 4. Heard learned Counsel appearing on either side. 5. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Corporation contended that the court below grossly erred in granting enhanced compensation towards the value of trees cut, even after finding that the respondents had not produced any evidence to prove that the assessment made by the Special Tahsildar regarding the age, future age, yield etc. are not correct. It is submitted that the land value fixed is also not based on legal evidence, as the court below found the properties in Exts.A11 and A12 documents, produced by the respondents for fixation of the land value, are not similar or similarly situated to that of the petition schedule properties. Therefore, the additional CRP Nos.184, 230 & 236 of 2018 -9- 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. 6. On careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the enhancement of compensation towards trees cut was made after considering the evidence in detail and following the decisions of this Court as also the compensation due towards diminution of 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. It is clear that the court below had considered the nature of lands, road access and locational features individually. 7. The contention of the Corporation that the Government having fixed 15% as diminution of CRP Nos.184, 230 & 236 of 2018 -10- 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 issued by the Government. The court below having granted only 9% interest, the challenge against the rate of interest is also rejected. For the aforementioned reasons, I am of the definite opinion that 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. If any amount is deposited pursuant to an order of this Court or otherwise, the same shall forthwith be released to the respondents on their filing appropriate applications. The entire enhanced compensation shall be paid to the CRP Nos.184, 230 & 236 of 2018 **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** respondents within three months of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil revision petitions are dismissed accordingly. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/