Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Stephan and Mery Stephan

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1946 CRP NO. 759 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.03.2018 IN OP NO.394 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.** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STEPHAN AGED 68 YEARS S/O SCARIA, THAIKKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, VELANCODE,P.O,KODENCHERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673001 2 MERY STEPHAN, W/O STEPHAN,THAIKKOTTATHIL HOUSE,VELANKODE P.O.KODENCHERY KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 6730001 BY ADVS. SMT.BIMALA BABY SHRI. JEFRIN JOSE** ## **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **7.03.2024, THE COURT ON 22.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP No.759 of 2018 -2- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 22[nd] day of May, 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 their property by the Corporation. The essential facts are as under; The respondents are in ownership and possession of landed property having a total extent of 55 cents in Kodencherry Village of 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 property. According to the CRP No.759 of 2018 -3- 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 amount was granted as compensation. Hence, respondents filed the original petition, seeking enhanced compensation towards the value of trees cut and diminution in land value. 2. Thereafter, being dissatisfied with the enhancement of compensation awarded by the court below, the respondents 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 respondents. After remand, the respondents filed a statement before the CRP No.759 of 2018 -4- court below clarifying that they are not claiming additional compensation for loss in value of improvements. Hence, the court below considered the claim for enhanced compensation towards diminution in land value alone and passed the impugned order. 3. After remand, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the land value was fixed on the basis of fair value extracts prepared by the Revenue Authorities, which was not proper and therefore, the land value fixed as well as percentage of diminution granted by the court below before remand are on the lower side. Hence, the land value should be fixed on the basis of the locational features of the petition schedule property, and the percentage of diminution on the basis of the extent of damage sustained. The properties involve in Exts.A11 and A12 documents were pointed out as comparable lands and prayer made to enhance the compensation CRP No.759 of 2018 -5- accordingly. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Corporation argued that, before remand, the court below had rightly assessed the compensation on the basis of commission reports, plans as well as the fair value extracts and the respondents had received the compensation thus fixed without demur. It is contended that Exts.A11 and A12 cannot be relied for fixing the land value, since the properties are not similar having similar features or are similarly situated. 6. Although Exts.A11 and A12 documents were pressed into service as comparable lands, it was found that, unlike the respondents' property, the properties covered by Exts.A11 and A12 are situated near to town/market centres and are commercial sites. Despite the fact that civic amenities are available within close proximity, the petition schedule property was found to be situated at a distance of 3 Km from Kodencherry CRP No.759 of 2018 -6- Town. The court below also took note of the fact that the petition schedule property has only a footpath access to Thamarassery-Kodencherry PWD road that lies at a distance of 50 metres from the property. On consideration of the above factors and the centage value fixed in O.P.(Ele.) No.136 of 2010 and connected cases, the court below fixed the land value at Rs.30,000/- per cent, as against Rs.15,000/- per cent fixed earlier. As a substantial portion of property is affected by drawing of the electric lines, the court below enhanced the percentage of diminution to 25% of the land value. A table containing the compensation thus awarded is appended below; |**Sl**<br>**No**|**Case**<br>**No.**|**Affected**<br>**area**|**Land**<br>**value**<br>**per cent**|**Percentage**<br>**of**<br>**diminution**|**Compensation**<br>**payable**|**Compensation**<br>**paid**|**Balance**<br>**Compensation**<br>**due**| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |**1**|**OP**<br>**394/10**|**38.5**|**30,000**|**25%**|**2,88,750**|**1,15,500**|**1,73,250**| In view of the decision of this Court in _**P.Raghavan v. KSEB [CRP No.3256 of 2001]**_ , the court below directed to pay interest on the additional compensation at the rate of 12% per CRP No.759 of 2018 -7- annum from the date of cutting of trees to the date of payment. 7. Heard learned Counsel appearing on either side. 8. 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 with the court was properly exercised by granting 25% of the land value as compensation for the lands affected due to the drawing of electric lines. 9. 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, while assessing CRP No.759 of 2018 -8- the damage sustained and fixing the compensation, the court is not bound by the guidelines/orders issued by the Government. The contention that the court below committed an illegality in awarding 12% interest cannot also be sustained in the light of the decision of this Court in _**P.Raghavan** (supra)._ As such, there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, warranting intervention by this Court in exercise of the revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For the aforementioned reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/