Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Sreenivasan M.G. (CRP Nos. 518/2018 & 696/2019)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2024-05-31
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petitions are dismissed. The enhanced compensation fixed by the lower court shall be paid within three months from receipt of a copy of the order, and any deposited amount shall be released to the claimant upon proper application.
Final Disposition: The revision petitions filed by the claimant and the Corporation are dismissed; enhanced compensation fixed by the lower court is to be paid within three months of receipt of the order; any deposited funds to be released to the claimant on request.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sreenivasan M.G
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Respondents

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
Special Tahsildar (LA), Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
Sreenivasan M.G.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.C. Eldho
• Aneesh James
• Jijo Thomas
• Mallenathan M.
• Sindhu Elias
• Rojo J. Thuruthipara

Counsels for Respondents

• Millu Dandapani
• K.C. Eldho
• Mallenenathan M.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This combined High Court judgment from Kerala deals with two Civil Revision Petitions challenging an order of the Additional District Judge, North Paravur, in O.P. (Electricity) No. 90 of 2011, awarding compensation for trees cut and for diminution in land value caused by the construction of 400 kV transmission lines by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. The claimant, Sreenivasan M.G, owned land in Pattimattom Village, where vast numbers of trees (coconut, areca palm, nutmeg, pepper) were felled to facilitate the transmission project, rendering parts of the land less valuable. The lower court computed losses by valuing yields from the felled trees year by year, applying prices per nut, dried produce weights, and an appropriate multiplier to estimate net income loss. For land diminution, the court relied on Ext.A2 sale deed and commission reports (Exts.C1, C1(j), C1(k)) and fixed the land value at Rs. 1,20,000 per cent, awarding 50% of the land value for the affected 10.12 ares (25 cents). Interest was fixed at 8% per annum. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s approach in KSEB v. Livisha (2007) 6 SCC 792 to justify the diminution-in-value assessment and held that government guidelines are not binding on fixation of compensation. The High Court dismissed both revisions, directing payment of enhanced compensation within three months, and maintained the lower court’s approach.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The claimant/petitioner for CRP 518 sought enhanced compensation for the trees felled and for diminution in land value due to the 400 kV line project. He argued that the lower court’s method of calculating tree losses by estimating annual yields and prevailing prices, and the use of a multiplier, as well as the fixation of land value, should reflect greater compensation for the damage to both agricultural income and land value.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that government guidelines for fixation of land value should govern fixation and that the lower court’s approach, including reliance on sale deeds and commission reports, was improperly applied. They contended for adherence to official guidelines and questioned the method of calculating the loss/diminution in value.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
KSEB v. Livisha	(2007) 6 SCC 792	Positive	Cited as the controlling principle for determining compensation for land value diminution due to infrastructure, guiding the court’s approach to situs, extent, and factors affecting land value.

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** **FRIDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946 CRP NO. 518 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2017 IN OPELC NO.90 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **SREENIVASAN M.G AGED 42 YEARS AGED 42, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, MADATHIL HOUSE, CHOORAKKAD KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683 562. BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.ELDHO SRI.ANEESH JAMES SRI.JIJO THOMAS SRI.MALLENATHAN.M. SMT.K.SINDHU ELIAS** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030. 2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-17.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR.GP.K.PHARISH;** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.05.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.696/2019, THE COURT ON 31.05.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.518/2018 & 696/2019 -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. 696 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2017 IN OPELE NO.90 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682 030. BY ADV ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 SREENIVASAN.M.G S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, MADATHIL HOUSE, CHOOPRAKKOD KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, PIN - 683562.** - **2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR** **(LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 017.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.ELDHO SRI.MALLENATHAN.M.** ## **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **27.05.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.518/2018, THE COURT ON 31.05.2024,** ## **DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.518/2018 & 696/2019 -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.90 of 2011. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.518 of 2018 (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 11.35 Ares comprised in Re-Sy.No.304/1 and another extent of 20.86 Ares in Re- CRP Nos.518/2018 & 696/2019 -4- Sy.Nos.305/6 and 305/7 in Block No.27 of Pattimattom Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land was cultivated 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.K.C.Eldho 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 CRP Nos.518/2018 & 696/2019 -5- tree by assessing the average number of nuts per year and multiplying it with the value of one coconut after deducting the immature falling and expenses. Likewise, the loss sustained due to cutting of areca palm was assessed by reckoning the total yield from each palm, the weight of nuts after drying and the price of dried nuts. Based on such assessment, the net income was fixed after deducting the immature falling and expenses. Similar method was adopted for calculating the loss sustained due to the cutting of nutmeg and pepper vines. For reckoning, the compensation amount payable, 8 was taken as the multiplier. Further, the court below fixed the compensation for cutting of valuable trees based on the assessment made by the Commissioner. 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 CRP Nos.518/2018 & 696/2019 -6- towards diminution in land value, the court below relied on Ext.A2 sale deed as well as Exts.C1, C1(j) and C1(k) commission report and plans. On consideration of the evidence on record and in view of the fact that the petition schedule property was not having a motorable pathway access, the land value was fixed at Rs.1,20,000/- per cent and awarded 50% of the land value as compensation for the affected area admeasuring 10.12 Ares (25 cents). Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.16,86,800/- 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**_ CRP Nos.518/2018 & 696/2019 -7- _**[(2007) 6 SCC 792].**_ Similarly, the discretion vested 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. 6. The contention of the Corporation that the Government having issued guidelines for fixation of the land value, the court below ought to have fixed the value 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 interest at the rate of 8% per annum being without merit, 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.518/2018 & 696/2019 -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/