High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-11Civil revision petitions dismissed; enhanced co...

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Lissamma George

Case / Petition Number:CRP Nos. 617, 624, 630, 634, 636, 644, 645 & 652 of 2018

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 High Court upheld the lower court’s enhanced compensation awards and found no illegality or material irregularity warranting interference under Section 115 CPC. It also directed that the entire enhanced compensation be paid to the respondents within three months of receipt of a copy of the order, and that any deposited amounts be released to the respondents on appropriate applications.
Final Disposition: Civil revision petitions dismissed; enhanced compensation upheld and to be paid within three months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (represented by its Additional General Manager, Ugrapuram, Areacode, Malappuram Dt.)

Respondents

Lissamma George
Philipose
C. P. Varghese
Pathumma
Muhammed Padinharethodikayil
C. P. Mathew
C. P. Kader
Hussein (Hussain) Malayil)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri E. M. Murugan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri V. V. Surendran
• Sri P. A. Harish

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a consolidated set of Civil Revision Petitions (CRP Nos. 617, 624, 630, 634, 636, 644, 645 & 652 of 2018) filed by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. challenging enhanced compensation awarded for diminution in land value due to the construction of 400 KV electric transmission lines across lands in Eangappuzha and Puthuppadi Villages, Kozhikode Taluk. The respondent landowners asserted that trees were felled and portions of land rendered non-usable; they sought higher compensation expanding beyond the fixed land value and the percentage diminution. The trial/appeal court remanded earlier to assess yield from trees and to include all components of diminution in land value; after remand, the legal heirs/landowners were awarded enhanced compensation. The revision petitioners argued lack of legal basis for the land value and that the percentage diminution should not exceed government guidelines (15%). The respondents contended the enhancement was reasonable, reflecting locational factors and actual damage to land and trees. The High Court, after hearing, upheld the impugned orders, holding that the court below was not bound by government guidelines and could determine compensation based on evidence and factors such as land location, extent affected, and the actual impairment in value. The court rejected the revision petitions, stating there was no illegality or irregularity warranting interference, and directed payment of the entire enhanced compensation within three months."

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Civil Procedure, Section 115

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Not bound by Government guidelines in fixing diminution in land value; court may consider all relevant factors and evidence to determine compensation.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that the land value fixed by the court below is not anchored in legal evidence; the additional compensation for diminution in land value is unjustifiably high, exceeding government guidelines; and that the court erred in not adhering to legal standards for determining market value and yield from trees, resulting in unlawful compensation. The petitioner also argues the court’s interpretation should be constrained by the 15% diminution guideline and that the 12% interest awarded is unjustified absent guidance.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the enhanced compensation is fair and reasonable, reflecting the extent of land affected, locational features, actual damage, and yield from trees. They argue that the court below carefully considered Exts. A12 and A20 and other evidence, and that the decision remanded for a precise appraisal of damage and subsequent compensation was proper. They insist that the Government guideline of 15% is not binding and that the court properly calculated compensation based on evidence and relevant factors.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
P. Raghavan v. KSEB	CRP No.3256 of 2001	Positive	Cited to justify the propriety of allowing interest at 12% and to support non-binding nature of Government guidelines in fixation of compensation, reinforcing the Court’s reasoning for the impugned order.

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. Lissamma George 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 11[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1945** **CRP NO. 617 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.03.2018 IN OPELE NO.232 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:** **LISSAMMA GEORGE AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.GEORGE,ARAMPULIKKAL (H),AMBALAKKANDI, PUTHUPPADI (PO),KOZHIKODE THALUK,KOZHIKODE. 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.624/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 11.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.617, 624, 630, 634, 636, 644, 645 & 652/2018 -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. 624 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.240 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:** **PHILIPPOSE AGED 65 YEARS, S/O KURIAN, KADUVAKKUZHIYIL (H),PUTHUPPADI PO, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE673001.** **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.617/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 11.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.617, 624, 630, 634, 636, 644, 645 & 652/2018 -3- **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. 630 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.03.2018 IN OP NO.329 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:** **C.P. VARGHESE AGED 40 YEARS AGED ABOUT 40, S/O.POULOSE, CHETTAKKATTIL (H), PUTHUPPADI P.O., PUTHUPPADI VILLAGE, KOZHIKKODE THALUK, KOZHIKKODE-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.624/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 11.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.617, 624, 630, 634, 636, 644, 645 & 652/2018 -4- ## **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. 634 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.127 OF 2011 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:** **PATHUMMAI AGED ABOUT 80,W/O ALIKUTTY HAJI,THUMBAMPARAMBIL(H),NADUKKANDIYIL,PUTHUPPADI .PO,PUTHUPPADI VILLAGE,KOZHIKKODE THALUK,KOZHIKODE. 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.624/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 11.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.617, 624, 630, 634, 636, 644, 645 & 652/2018 -5- ## **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. 636 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OP NO.229 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 PADINHARETHODIKAYIL, S/O.AHAMMED KUTTY, REPRESENTED BY P.A.HOLDER SAFIYA, CHEENIPARAMBIL, W/O.MUHAMMED, PADINHARETHODIKAYIL HOUSE, P.O.PUTHUPPADI, PUTHUPPADI VILLAGE, KOZHIKKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 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.624/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 11.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.617, 624, 630, 634, 636, 644, 645 & 652/2018 -6- ## **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. 644 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.03.2018 IN OP NO.365 OF 2010 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **POWER GRID COPORATION OF INDIA REP.BY ITS ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER, URGAPURAM, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV SRI.E.M.MURUGAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **C.P.MATHEW AGED 48 YEARS AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. PAULOSE, CHETTAKKATTIL (H), PUTHUPPADI P.O., PUTHUPPADI VILLAGE, KOZHIKKODE THALUK, KOZHIKKODE. 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.624/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 11.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.617, 624, 630, 634, 636, 644, 645 & 652/2018 -7- ## **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. 645 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.03.2018 IN OPELE NO.243 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:** **C P KADER AGED 50 YEARS,S/O HUSSAIN,KANNORAKANDY(H),CHEENAKKAMPOYIL,ELETTIL. P.O,KODUVALLI,ELETTIL VATTOLI,KOZHIKKODE THALUK,KOZHIKKODE-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.624/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 11.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.617, 624, 630, 634, 636, 644, 645 & 652/2018 -8- ## **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. 652 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.03.2018 IN OP NO.143 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:** **HUSSAIN MALAYIL HOUSE, P.O.KUPPAYAKODE, ENGAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKDOE DISTRICT673001.** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.624/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 11.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.617, 624, 630, 634, 636, 644, 645 & 652/2018 **==> picture [19 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** ## **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 Eangappuzha and Puthuppadi Villages 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 CRP Nos.617, 624, 630, 634, 636, 644, 645 & 652/2018 **==> picture [25 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** Mysore-Kozhikode sector, large number of trees were cut from the properties. According to the respondents, 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 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, CRP Nos.617, 624, 630, 634, 636, 644, 645 & 652/2018 **==> picture [25 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** the respondents filed a statement before the court below clarifying that they are not claiming additional 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 CRP Nos.617, 624, 630, 634, 636, 644, 645 & 652/2018 -12- Exts.A12 and A20 documents for the purpose of fixing land value, the court below found that the properties in Exts.A12 and A20 documents are at a distance of 750 metres to 1 km from the properties of the respondents and cannot therefore be considered as similar or similarly situated to the petition schedule properties. Instead, reliance was placed on the locational features described in the Advocate Commissioner's report. 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 the affected area for each case separately and directed to pay 25% of the land value as compensation in OP Nos.143, 229, 240, 243, 329& 127 of 2010 and 30% and 45% respectively in O.P.Nos.232 and 365 of 2010. A table containing the extent of property affected, the land value fixed and the compensation awarded CRP Nos.617, 624, 630, 634, 636, 644, 645 & 652/2018 -13- ## is appended below; |**Sl** **No**|**Case No.**|**Affected** **area**|**Land** **value** **per cent**|**Percentage** **of** **diminution**|**Compensation** **payable**|**Compensation** **paid**|**Compensation** **due**| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |**1**|**OP** **143/10**|**20.50**|**35,000**|**25%**|**1,79,375**|**61,500**|**1,17,875**| |**2**|**OP** **229/10**|**58.50**|**35,000**|**25%**|**5,11,875**|**1,75,500**|**3,36,375**| |**3**|**OP** **232/10**|**40**|**35,000**|**30%**|**4,20,000**|**1,20,000**|**3,00,000**| |**4**|**OP** **240/10**|**77.30**|**35,000**|**25%**|**6,76,375**|**2,31,900**|**4,44,475**| |**5**|**OP** **243/10**|**60**|**35,000**|**25%**|**5,25,000**|**1,80,000**|**3,45,000**| |**6**|**OP** **329/10**|**26.50**|**35,000**|**25%**|**2,31,875**|**79,500**|**1,52,375**| |**7**|**OP** **365/10**|**36**|**35,000**|**45%**|**5,67,000**|**2,16,000**|**3,51,000**| |**8**|**OP** **127/11**|**48**|**35,000**|**25%**|**4,20,000**|**1,44,000**|**2,76,000**| 5. 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 affected and the consequent diminution in the value of the land. 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 CRP Nos.617, 624, 630, 634, 636, 644, 645 & 652/2018 -14- 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 this Court's decision in ## _**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. CRP Nos.617, 624, 630, 634, 636, 644, 645 & 652/2018 **==> picture [25 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** The civil revision petitions are dismissed accordingly. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/