Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. R. Jayaprakash

## **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. 425 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 07.08.2019 IN OPELE NO.80 OF 2015 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **R.JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, THEKKEMADATHIL HOUSE, IRINGOLE P.O., PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. P.C.HARIDAS SRI.V.S.SURESH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, CHANDINI PLOT NO.190-B, MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANADU, KOCHI- 682030.** **2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION INDIA LTD., KAKKANADU, KOCHI- 682030.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR.GP.V.TEKCHAND** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.03.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.129/2020, THE COURT ON 31.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.425 of 2019 & 129 of 2020 -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. 129 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.80 OF 2015 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CHANDINI, PLOT NO.190-B, MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER BY ADV PRAVEEN K. JOY** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 JAYAPRAKASH AGED 53 YEARS S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN PILLAI, THEKKEMADOM, IRINGOLE.P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683545 2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030** **BY ADVS. P.C.HARIDAS V.S.SURESH** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **19.03.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.425/2019, THE COURT ON 31.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.425 of 2019 & 129 of 2020 -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, North Paravur in O.P. (Electricity) No.80 of 2015. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.425 of 2019 (hereinafter called 'the claimant'), being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded towards the damage and loss sustained due to the drawing of 400 KV lines across his property by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd (hereinafter called 'the Corporation'). The essential facts are as under; According to the claimant, he is in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 15.64 Ares comprised in ReSy.Nos.253/21, 253/16/2 to 35/5/3 in Block No.18 of Perumbavoor Village. The land was cultivated CRP Nos.425 of 2019 & 129 of 2020 -4- with various yielding and non-yielding trees. In order to facilitate drawing of lines for the smooth transmission of power, large number of trees were cut from the claimant's 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 claimant 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 claimant 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 coconut palms by assessing the total number of nuts per year and multiplying it with the price of one coconut after deducting the immature falling CRP Nos.425 of 2019 & 129 of 2020 -5- expenses. Likewise, the loss sustained due to cutting of yielding rubber trees was calculated based on an assessment that 13 Kilograms of latex can be obtained from a rubber tree per year and multiplying it with the price of one kilogram. Based on such assessment, the net income was fixed after deducting expenses. Similar method was adopted for calculating the loss sustained due to the cutting of arecanut. 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 Ext.A1 sale deed as well as Exts.C1 and C1(a) commission report and sketch. The Advocate Commissioner had reported that the petition schedule property is having private road access and a total extent of 14.11 Ares (34.87 cents) CRP Nos.425 of 2019 & 129 of 2020 -6- was injuriously affected due to the drawing of electric lines. Based on these factors and on consideration of the potentiality of the property, the land value was fixed at Rs.1,50,000/- per cent and awarded 50% of the land value as compensation towards diminution of land value. Taking note of the fact that an extent of 2.89 Ares (7.14 cents) is covered by the tower, the court below granted 100% of the land value as compensation on that account. Thus, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.35,86,800/- with interest at the rate of 8% 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 CRP Nos.425 of 2019 & 129 of 2020 -7- 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 and 100% of the land value for the extent covered by the tower. 6. The contention of the Corporation that the Government having fixed the fair value, the court below could not have fixed a higher value is liable to be rejected since the court is not bound by the guidelines/orders issued by the Government while fixing the compensation. In view of the decision of this Court in _**Maya Venu v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd [2023 (7)**_ _**KHC 673]**_ , the contention that the court below committed an illegality by allowing a time barred claim 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 CRP Nos.425 of 2019 & 129 of 2020 -8- revision petitions filed by the claimant 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 shall forthwith be released to the claimant on his filing appropriate application. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/