Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd v. SASI C.M

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.
Final Disposition: Civil revision petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., rep by its Additional General Manager, UGRAPURAM, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DT.

Respondents

SASI.C.M S/O. MUNDAN, CHOYIYOTH HOUSE, MAIKAV P O, KOODATHAI VILLAGE, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• E.M.Murugan

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT. BIMALA BABY
• SHRI. JEFRIN JOSE

Case Synopsis & Summary

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. challenges an order awarding enhanced compensation for diminution in land value caused by 400 kV transmission lines drawn across the respondent's land in Kozhikode district. The case traces a history where the landowner sought compensation for trees felled and ensuing diminution in value, leading to a remand to reassess yield from trees and all components of diminution, with guidance to consider market value, location, and proximity to roads. On remand, the trial court determined compensation by fixing a 25% land-value percentage for the affected area (64 cents) based on the properties cited in Exts A11–A12, the commission report, and the property’s proximity to amenities and a road. The corporation contends that this fixation lacks legal basis and veers beyond government guidelines on land valuation. The respondent defends the award as reasonable, asserting the court correctly weighed the site, extent of impact, and local factors. The High Court reviews the assessment, cites KSEB v. Livisha to justify the approach, and holds that while government guidelines are not binding, the court’s decision was well-reasoned. It upholds the impugned order, dismissing the revision petition, and clarifies that the court’s discretion in compensation remains anchored in situs, degree of diminishing effect, and relevant factors.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Valuation of land for compensation must consider situs and the extent of diminution, as laid down in KSEB v. Livisha (2007) 6 SCC 792.
The court is not bound by government guidelines on fixation of compensation; the final determination rests on relevant factors and evidence.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the land value fixed by the court below is not based on legally admissible evidence; the additional compensation awarded is unreasonable and the diminution in land value far exceeds the percentage fixed by the Government. It is urged that the court ought not to rely solely on Exts A11 and A12 since the properties are not similar to the petition schedule property; the court's remand and the calculation of yield from trees requires consistent application of relevant factors and should align with statutory and policy frameworks.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends that the enhancement is reasonable, having been determined after considering factors such as the situs of the land, extent of impact, proximity to town, civic amenities, road access, and commission findings; the court below’s fixation of compensation is justified and supported by the evidence.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
KSEB v. Livisha	(2007) 6 SCC 792	Positive	Cited as the controlling principle for determining land diminution and situs-based valuation in compensation cases.
P. Raghavan v. KSEB	CRP No. 3256 of 2001	Positive	Cited to support the court’s stance on awarding interest (12%) and not interfering with the lower court’s order.

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. 757 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.03.2018 IN OP NO.383 OF 2010 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE** **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER , UGRAPURAM, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV E.M.MURUGAN** **RESPONDENT/S:** **SASI.C.M S/O. MUNDAN, CHOYIYOTH HOUSE, MAIKAV P O, KOODATHAI VILLAGE , KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT. 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.757 of 2018 -2- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 12[th] day of June, 2024 The revision petitioner, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd ('the Corporation' for CRP No.757 of 2018 -3- 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; The respondent is in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 1 Acre comprised in Re-Sy.No.16/1 of Koodathayi 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 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 CRP No.757 of 2018 -4- 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 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. CRP No.757 of 2018 -5- 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. 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.A11 and A12 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.A11 and A12 and the petition schedule property are not similar or similarly situated. The court below CRP No.757 of 2018 -6- took note of the fact that an extent of 64 cents is affected due to the drawing of electric lines and going by the manner in which the lines were drawn, the property was substantially affected. Relying on the commission report and sketch, the court below found that the petition schedule property is situated at a distance of 3.5 Km from the Kodencherry Town and is connected to ErudeKanhirad Panchayat road through a footpath. It was also found that the civic amenities are available within a radius of 1 to 2 Kms and the nearest PWD road passes at a distance of 50 metres from the property. Based on the said findings and in view of the fact that the court below had fixed the centage value for properties abutting Panchayat roads with similar proximity to town centres in O.P.No.136/2010 and connected cases, the land value and also the affected area are fixed and the Corporation was directed to pay 25% of the land value as compensation. A table CRP No.757 of 2018 -7- 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** **383/2010**|**64**|**25,000**|**25%**|**4,00,000**|**1,53,600**|**2,46,400**| 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**_ ## _**[(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 CRP No.757 of 2018 -8- 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. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/