Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd v. Baby M.K

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V. G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2024-06-12
Court Decision / Holding: Civil revision petition dismissed; the order of the Additional District Court, Kozhikode, is upheld and the enhanced compensation determined for diminution in land value remains in force.
Final Disposition: Revision petition dismissed; lower court’s order upheld.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd

Respondents

Baby M.K.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• E. M. Murugan

Counsels for Respondents

• Bimala Baby
• Jefrin Jose

Case Synopsis & Summary

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., the revision petitioner, challenges an order of the Additional District Court, Kozhikode, which enhanced compensation for diminution in land value resulting from the construction of 400 kV transmission lines across Baby M.K.'s property. The dispute arose after a large extent of trees on the respondent’s land were removed to facilitate the Mysore–Kozhikode transmission corridor, allegedly reducing land value and utility. On remand, the respondent clarified that only diminution in land value was claimed, excluding any compensation for improvements. The court below, after considering Exts. A18 and A19, the commissioner's report, and the petition schedule property’s characteristics, held that the properties in Exts. A18 and A19 were not similarly situated to the petition schedule property, fixed the land value, assessed the affected area (22.5 cents), and directed payment of 25% of the land value as diminution. The petitioner contends the land value is not backed by legal evidence, the enhanced compensation is unwarranted, and government guidelines fix a diminution percentage that should govern awards. The respondent argues the enhancement is reasonable, derived from relevant factors and market considerations. The High Court, applying the principle from KSEB v. Livisha (2007) 6 SCC 792, held that situs and extent of impairment guide fixation of compensation, and that government guidelines do not bind the court. It also noted 12% interest should not be sustained and dismissed the revision petition.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner argued that the land value fixed by the court below was not based on legal evidence and that the enhanced compensation for diminution in land value was unreasonable and in excess of any percentage that might be fixed by government guidelines. It contended that the court erred by relying on Exts. A18 and A19 and by treating those comparables as not similar to the petition schedule property; argued that the government’s directives on diminution are binding and should guide the award.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contended that the enhancement was reasonable and the court below considered all relevant factors, including the extent of land affected (22.5 cents), the situs of the land, proximity to amenities, and the diminution in value due to the 400 kV lines. It was emphasized that the award reflects the actual impact on land value and is supported by the commissioner's report, with Exts. A18 and A19 illustrating comparable factors.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
KSEB v. Livisha	(2007) 6 SCC 792	Positive	The decision was cited to justify fixing compensation based on situs and extent of impairment, rather than rigid guidelines, aligning with the principle used by the Kerala High Court in determining diminution in land value.
P. Raghavan v. KSEB	CRP No.3256 of 2001	Positive	Used to resist the contention that a 12% interest endorsement is sustainable; relied upon to support limiting interest as per that decision.

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 12[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946** **CRP NO. 744 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.04.2018 IN OPELE** **NO.408 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 E.M. MURUGAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **BABY M.K AGED 45 YEARS S/O KURIYAN, MURIMATTATHIL HOUSE, KUPPAYAKODE P.O. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673001 BY ADVS. SMT.BIMALA BABY SHRI. JEFRIN JOSE** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.05.2024, THE COURT ON 12.06.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP No.744 of 2018 -2- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 12[th] day of June, 2024 The revision petitioner, Power Grid CRP No.744 of 2018 -3- Corporation of India Ltd ('the Corporation' for short), is aggrieved by the enhanced compensation ordered to be paid to the respondent towards diminution in land value, consequent upon the drawing of 400 KV electric lines across his property by the Corporation. The essential facts are as under; In order to facilitate 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 respondent's property. According to the respondent, 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 respondent, only small amount was granted as compensation. Hence, the original petition was filed, seeking enhanced compensation towards the value of trees cut and diminution in land value. Being dissatisfied with CRP No.744 of 2018 -4- the enhanced compensation ordered by the court, the respondent 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 any new factor which may be brought to the notice of the court by the respondent. 2. After remand, the respondent filed a statement before the court below clarifying that he is not claiming additional compensation for loss in value of improvements. Accordingly, the court below considered the claim for enhanced compensation towards diminution in land value alone and passed the impugned order. 3. Heard learned Counsel appearing on either side. 4. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Corporation contended that the land value fixed is not based on legal evidence. CRP No.744 of 2018 -5- 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 respondent argued that the enhancement is reasonable and has been granted after considering all relevant factors. 5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that, although respondent had relied on Exts.A18 and A19 documents for the purpose of fixing land value, considering the lie of the lands and nature of transactions, the court below found that the properties involved in Exts.A18 and A19 and the petition schedule property are not similar or similarly situated. The court below took note of the fact that an extent of 22.5 cents is affected due to the drawing of electric lines and going by the manner in which the lines were drawn, the petition schedule property was substantially affected. Relying on the commission CRP No.744 of 2018 -6- report and sketch, the court below found that the petition schedule property abuts a Panchayat road and is situated at a distance of 1½ Km from Mykkavu Town. The Advocate Commissioner had reported that civic amenities are available within a radius of 500 metres to 2 Km from the property. Based on the said findings, the court below fixed the land value and also the affected area and directed to pay 25% of the land value as compensation. A table containing the compensation thus awarded is appended below; |**Sl** **No**|**Case No.**|**Affected** **area (in** **cents)**|**Land** **value** **per cent**|**Percent** **age of** **diminut** **ion**|**Compensati** **on payable**|**Compensa** **tion** **paid**|**Balance** **Compensatio** **n due**| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |**1**|**OP** **408/2010**|**22.5**|**35,000**|**25%**|**1,96,875**|**36,000**|**1,60,875**| 6. On careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the compensation payable 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**_ CRP No.744 of 2018 -7- ## _**[(2007) 6 SCC 792].**_ 7. The contention of the Corporation that the Government having fixed the fair value of the land and also issued guidelines for the fixation of the percentage of diminution, the court below ought to have fixed the land value and percentage of diminution 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 12% interest cannot also be sustained in the light of the decision of this Court in _**P.Raghavan v. KSEB [CRP No.3256 of**_ _**2001].**_ 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 petition is dismissed. CRP No.744 of 2018 -8- Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/