Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. C.A. Thomas; Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Elias M.P.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V. G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2024-03-11
Court Decision / Holding: The civil revision petitions are dismissed; the enhanced compensation stands. Any deposited amount shall be released to the respondents on appropriate applications, and the entire enhanced compensation must be paid within three months of receipt of a copy of this order.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Respondents

C.A. Thomas
Elias M.P.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• E.M. Murugan

Counsels for Respondents

• V.V. Surendran
• P.A. Harish

Case Synopsis & Summary

This court case concerns two Civil Revision Petitions filed by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. challenging enhanced compensation awarded to landowners for diminution in land value arising from the drawing of 400 kV transmission lines in Kozhikode district. The respondents owned land in Koodathai village where trees were felled for line corridors, resulting in diminished land value and yield losses. After remand directions from this court, the trial court undertook a detailed assessment, considering factors like locational features, distance from NH-212, the extent of land adversely affected, yields from individual trees, and any newly disclosed factors, to determine the compensation owed for diminution in land value. The court attributed 25% diminution percentages to the two connected cases and arrived at specific monetary figures, divided into land value and the consequential losses. The revision petitioners argued that fixation of land value was not supported by legal evidence and that the enhanced compensation exceeded permitted government guidelines; the respondents argued the enhancement was reasonable, properly reasoned, and based on the remand directions. The judge rejected the challenge to the impugned order, clarifying that he was not bound by government guidelines and that factors such as situs and magnitude of impact justified the award. A cited decision, P. Raghavan v. KSEB, was invoked to support allowing 12% interest. The petitions were dismissed, with directions for payment within three months and for release of deposited sums on application.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that the land value fixed by the court below is not based on legal evidence, and the additional compensation awarded for diminution in land value is unreasonable and exceeds the Government’s fixed percentage. It argues that the court below erred by applying higher figures and not adhering to established guidelines, seeking a more stringent, evidence-based calculation and challenging the fixation of land values.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the enhanced compensation is reasonable after considering all relevant factors, including the situs of the land, extent of adverse impact, and the resulting diminution in land value. They argue the remand court properly weighed factors such as yield from trees and market values, and that the higher compensation reflects the true extent of damage caused by the lines and the associated disruptions.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
P. Raghavan v. KSEB	CRP No.3256 of 2001	Positive	Cited to justify that the court is not bound by government guidelines on diminution in land value and to support allowing 12% interest on the awarded amount.

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 11[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1945** **CRP NO. 900 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.02.2018 IN OP NO.246 OF 2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER, UGRAPURAM, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV E.M.MURUGAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **C.A.THOMAS AGED 47 YEARS S/O.AUGUSTY, CHENAPARAMBIL (H), THEYYAPPARA.P.O., KOODATHAI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. PIN-673 001. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.12.2023, THE COURT ON 11.03.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.902/2018, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.900 and 902 of 2018 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1945 CRP NO. 902 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.02.2018 IN OP NO.265 OF 2009 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:** **ELIAS M.P., S/O PAILI, MANAYATH KUDIYIL (H), THEYYAPPARA P.O, ENGAPUZHA, KOZHIKKODE DIST - 673001. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **20.12.2023, THE COURT ON 11.03.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.900/2018, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.900 and 902 of 2018 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 11[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 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 are in ownership and possession of various extents of landed property in Koodathai Village in Kozhikode Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. 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 properties. According to the respondents, the CRP Nos.900 and 902 of 2018 -4- 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 respondents, only small amounts were granted as compensation. Hence, the original petitions were filed by the respondents, seeking enhanced compensation towards the value of trees cut and diminution in land value. Being dissatisfied with the enhanced compensation ordered by the court, the respondents preferred civil revision petitions and the same were allowed by this Court and the cases 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 respondents. After remand, the respondents filed a statement before the court below clarifying that they are not claiming additional CRP Nos.900 and 902 of 2018 -5- compensation for loss in value of improvements than what has been ordered earlier. Accordingly, the court below considered the claim for enhanced compensation towards diminution in land value and passed the impugned order. 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. Although respondents had relied on Ext.A9 document for the purpose of fixing land value, the court below found that the property involved in Ext.A9 document and the petition CRP Nos.900 and 902 of 2018 **==> picture [19 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** schedule properties are not similar or similarly situated, considering the distance between the two properties and the nature of transaction in Ext.A9 document. The court below took note of the fact that the property in O.P.No.246/09, though 4 Km away from NH-212, is connected to the PWD Road extending to NH 212 through a private road and the property in O.P.No.265/3009 is 3 Km away from NH 212 and has private road access to the nearby PWD road. Thus, it is clear that the court below had considered the locational features and distance between NH 212 and the petition schedule properties individually. 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 court below fixed land value and also the affected area for each case separately and directed to pay 25% of the land value as compensation. A table containing the compensation CRP Nos.900 and 902 of 2018 -7- ## thus awarded is appended below; |**Sl** **No**|**Case No.**|**Percentage** **of** **diminution**|**Compensation** **payable**|**Compensation** **paid**|**Balance** **Compensation** **due**| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |**1**|**OP 246/2009**|**25%**|**7,12,500**|**95,000 **|**6,17,500**| |**2**|**OP 265/2009**|**25%**|**3,18,750**|**56,100 **|**2,62,650**| 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. 6. The contention of the Corporation 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 issued by the Government. The contention that the court below committed an illegality by awarding 12% interest cannot also be sustained in the light of the decision in CRP Nos.900 and 902 of 2018 -8- ## _**P.Raghavan v. KSEB [CRP No.3256 of 2001].**_ 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 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/