High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-05-31Dismissed; order of lower court upheld; enhance...

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v Alli Devi and Others (CRP Nos. 392 of 2019 and 683 of 2019)

Case / Petition Number:CRP Nos. 392 of 2019 and 683 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2024-05-31
Court Decision / Holding: Civil revision petitions are dismissed. The order of the Additional District Judge in OP (Electricity) No.156 of 2014 is upheld. The enhanced compensation fixed by the lower court is confirmed and shall be paid within three months of receipt of a copy of this order, with interest at 6% per annum on the amount awarded.
Final Disposition: Dismissed; order of lower court upheld; enhanced compensation to be paid within three months; 6% interest

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Alli Devi
Sajeev V.G
Saritha G Panicker
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Respondents

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
Special Tahsildar (LA), Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.C. Haridas
• Rojo J. Thuruthipara

Counsels for Respondents

• Millu Dandapani
• P.C. Haridas
• V.S. Suresh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court decision consolidates two Civil Revision Petitions (CRP Nos. 392 and 683 of 2019) challenging an order in OP (Electricity) No. 156 of 2014, arising from 400 kV transmission lines drawn across land owned by Alli Devi and others in Rayamangalam Village. The claimants sought enhanced compensation for loss due to felled rubber trees, areca palms, and cocoa trees, as well as diminution in land value. The Additional District Judge fixed compensation by deriving income from yields (e.g., 20 kg latex per rubber tree annually), and by valuing land at Rs. 2,00,000 per cent with 50% awarded for the affected 0.35 are. The trial court relied on sale deeds (Exts A1-A2) and commission reports (Exts C1-C1(a)) to determine land value. The court reasoned that the diminution in land value should consider situs and extent of impact, citing KSEB v. Livisha (2007) 6 SCC 792, and held Government guidelines are not binding. On appeal, the High Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the lower court’s method and order, directing payment of enhanced compensation within three months and 6% interest. The decision reiterates that compensation must reflect actual losses to trees and land value, based on site-specific data rather than rigid guidelines.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Doctrine: Fixation of compensation for land acquired for public utility based on diminution in land value and situs/extent of impact (as per KSEB v. Livisha, 2007)
Principle: Government guidelines on land value are not binding on courts when fixing compensation
Discretionary principle: Court’s award of compensation is not bound by government guidelines; factors such as situs, extent of impact, and access influence compensation

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The claimants argued that the compensation awarded for the trees (rubber, areca, cocoa) and the diminution in land value was inadequate, and sought enhanced compensation based on yields, prices, and commission/sale records. They relied on Exts A1–A2 and Exts C1–C1(a) to support valuation of the land and on the yield-based calculation for trees. They contended the court below should reflect true market value of the losses caused by the 400 kV transmission lines.

Contentions of Respondents

The Power Grid Corporation contended that the lower court’s method of calculating compensation—based on estimated yields from trees, price of dried produce, and a 50% modifier on land value for the affected area—is just and proper. It argued the Government guidelines on land value are not binding on courts for fixation of compensation, and that 6% interest on the awarded amount is appropriate.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
KSEB v. Livisha	(2007) 6 SCC 792	Positive	Cited as authority for fixation of compensation based on diminution in land value and factors like situs; supports 50% land-value approach used by the trial court.

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 Alli Devi and Others (CRP Nos. 392 of 2019 and 683 of 2019) 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** **FRIDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946** ## **CRP NO. 392 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.11.2018 IN OPELE NO.156 OF 2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR REVISION PETITIONER/S:** - **1 ALLI DEVI AGED 68 YEARS W/O LATE K.G.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, KADAL BHAVAN, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O.PULLUVAZHY, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE.** - **2 SAJEEV V.G, AGED 1 YEARS S/O K.G.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, KADAL BHAVAN, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O.PULLUVAZHY, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE.** - **3 SARITHA G PANICKER, AGED 1 YEARS D/O K.G.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, KADAL BHAVAN, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O.PULLUVAZHY, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE.** **BY ADV P.C.HARIDAS** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 POWER GRID CORPORATION INDIA LTD CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030** - **2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION INDIA LTD, CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-17** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR.GP.K.PHARISH; SR.GP.V.TEKCHAND** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **31.05.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.683/2019, THE COURT ON 31.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.392 & 683 of 2019 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **FRIDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946** **CRP NO. 683 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.11.2018 IN OPELE NO.156 OF** **2014 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 ALLI DEVI, AGED 68 YEARS W/O.K.G.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, KADAL BHAVAN, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O., PULLUVAZHY RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE- 683545.** - **2 SAJEEV V.G., AGED 49 YEARS S/O.K.G.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, KADAL BHAVAN, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O., PULLUVAZHY RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE- 683545.** - **3 SARITHA G.PANICKER, AGED 38 YEARS D/O.K.G.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, KADAL BHAVAN, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O., PULLUVAZHY RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE- 683545.** - **4 SPECIAL THASILDHAR, (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE- 673017. BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS SRI.V.S.SURESH** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **31.05.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.392/2019, THE COURT ON 31.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.392 & 683 of 2019 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 31[st] day of May, 2024 These revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-II, North Paravur in O.P. (Electricity) No.156 of 2014. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioners in CRP No.392 of 2019 (hereinafter called 'the claimants'), being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded towards the damage and loss sustained due to the drawing of 400 KV lines across their property by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd (hereinafter called 'the Corporation'). The essential facts are as under; According to the claimants, they are in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 54.62 Ares comprised in ReSy.No.373/8 of Rayamangalam Village. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding CRP Nos.392 & 683 of 2019 -4- trees. In order to facilitate drawing of lines for the smooth transmission of power, large number of trees were cut from the claimants' 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 claimants 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.P.C.Haridas for the claimants 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 20 kilograms of latex can be obtained from a rubber tree per year and multiplying it with the price of one kilogram CRP Nos.392 & 683 of 2019 -5- after deducting expenses. Likewise, the loss sustained due to cutting of areca palm was assessed by reckoning the total yield from each palm, the weight of nuts after drying and the price of dried nuts. Based on such assessment, the net income was fixed after deducting the expenses. Similar method was adopted for calculating the loss sustained due to the cutting of cocoa trees. For reckoning, the compensation amount payable, 8 was taken as the multiplier. 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 Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds as well as Exts.C1 and C1(a) commission report and sketch. The Advocate Commissioner had reported that the petition schedule property is having proper road access. On consideration of the said factors, CRP Nos.392 & 683 of 2019 -6- the land value was fixed at Rs.2,00,000/- per cent and awarded 50% of the land value as compensation for the affected area admeasuring 0.35 Ares (0.8645 cents). Accordingly, the claimants were found entitled to compensation of Rs.3,10,450/- with interest at the rate of 6% 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. 6. The contention of the Corporation that CRP Nos.392 & 683 of 2019 -7- 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 6% 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 claimants 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. If any amount is deposited pursuant to the order of this Court or otherwise, the same CRP Nos.392 & 683 of 2019 -8- shall forthwith be released to the claimants on their filing appropriate application. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/