R. Jayasree v Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and Special Tahsildar (LA)

## **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. 429 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 07.03.2019 IN OPELE NO.79 OF 2015 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **R.JAYASREE AGED 50 YEARS D/O. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, THEKKEMADATHIL HOUSE, IRINGOLE P.O., PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST** **BY ADVS. P.C.HARIDAS SRI.V.S.SURESH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 POWER GRID CORPORATION INDIA LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, CHANDINI PLOT NO.190-B, MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682 030 2 SEPCIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION INDIA LTD, KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682 030** **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR.GP.K.PHARISH; SR.GP.V.TEKCHAND** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.03.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.85/2020, THE COURT ON 31.05.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.429/2019 & 85/2020 -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. 85 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.79 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 - 682 030, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV PRAVEEN K. JOY** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 R.JAYASREE, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, THEKKEMADOM, IRINGOLE P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM - 683 545. 2 SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 030. BY ADVS. P.C.HARIDAS V.S.SURESH** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.03.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.429/2019, THE COURT ON 31.05.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.429/2019 & 85/2020 -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.79 of 2015. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.429 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 her property by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd (hereinafter called 'the Corporation'). The essential facts are as under; According to the claimant, she is in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 15.40 Ares comprised in ReSy.No.231/5/1 in Block No.18 of Perumbavoor Village. The land was cultivated with various CRP Nos.429/2019 & 85/2020 -4- 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 average number of nuts per year and multiplying it with the price of one coconut after deducting the immature falling and expenses. Likewise, the loss sustained due to CRP Nos.429/2019 & 85/2020 -5- 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 other yielding trees like nutmeg and arecanut. For reckoning the compensation amount payable, 8 was taken as the multiplier. Further, the court below fixed the compensation for cutting of mango 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 towards diminution in land value, the court below relied on Ext.A1 sale deed as well as Exts.C1 and C1(b) commission report and sketch. The Advocate Commissioner had reported that the petition CRP Nos.429/2019 & 85/2020 -6- schedule property is having Panchayat road access. Based on these factors, the land value was fixed at Rs.2,00,000/- per cent and awarded 50% of the land value as compensation for the affected area admeasuring 10.72 Ares (26.49 cents). Taking note of the existence of a building in the affected area, the court below granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards injurious affection of the building. Thus, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.29,56,000/- 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 with the court was properly exercised by awarding 50% of the land value as compensation for the CRP Nos.429/2019 & 85/2020 -7- land affected due to the drawing of electric lines and Rs.1,00,000/- for injurious affection of the building situated in the affected area. 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 revision petitions filed by the claimant as well CRP Nos.429/2019 & 85/2020 -8- 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 her filing appropriate application. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/