Rini Jolly v Power Grid Corporation of India

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2024-05-31
Court Decision / Holding: Civil revision petitions dismissed. The enhanced compensation fixed by the lower court is to be paid within three months of receipt of this order. Any amount deposited pursuant to the court’s order shall be released to the claimant upon application.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

RINI JOLLY
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED

Respondents

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-17
RINI JOLLY

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

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

Counsels for Respondents

• K.C. Eldho
• Millu Dandapani

Case Synopsis & Summary

This consolidated High Court of Kerala decision arises from two civil revision petitions (CRP Nos. 514 of 2018 and 842 of 2019) filed against an order dated 28.11.2017 of the Additional District Judge, North Paravur, in O.P. (Electricity) No.84 of 2011. The petitioner in CRP 514, Rini Jolly, claims loss due to 400 kV transmission lines drawn across her land in Pattimattom Village, Ernakulam, resulting in the cutting of coconut palms, areca palms, nutmeg, pepper vines and other valuable trees, with substantial diminution of land value. The petition contends that the compensation awarded by the court below was inadequate and seeks enhancement. Conversely, in CRP 842 of 2019, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. challenges the same impugned order, contending that the lower award already reflects proper compensation and that government directions need not bind judicial discretion. The court examined the methods used to calculate compensation, including yields from trees and the valuation of land using Ext. A2 sale deed and Exts. C1/C1(e) commission reports, and applied a 50% land-value component for the affected land, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in KSEB v. Livisha (2007) 6 SCC 792. The judge found no grounds to interfere, holding that the lower court’s approach was just and proper and that government directives are not binding constraints on compensation. The petitions are dismissed; enhanced compensation must be paid within three months, and any deposited amounts must be released upon appropriate application.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The claimant (Rini Jolly) sought enhanced compensation for trees cut and diminution in land value due to the 400 kV transmission lines, relying on Ext. A2 sale deed and commission reports to determine land value, and urged that the lower award undervalued the loss and must be increased. The corporation argued that compensation was already adequate, proper method was used, and government directives need not constrain judicial discretion; it contended that the lower court’s approach and the 8 multiplier for losses were appropriate and consistent with law.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defended the impugned order, asserting that compensation already fixed was just, that the court was not bound by governmental directions, and that the method of calculating diminution in land value via situs and extent of adverse impact, along with the 50% land-value compensation, was proper as supported by precedent.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
KSEB v. Livisha	[(2007) 6 SCC 792]	Positive	The court relied on the KSEB v. Livisha principle to fix land diminution and determine compensation for land affected by transmission lines, endorsing the 50% land-value approach used by the lower court.

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. 514 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2017 IN OPELE NO.84 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **RINI JOLLY AGED 35 YEARS AGED 35, W/O.JOLLY, VILLIADATH HOUSE,PONNURUNNI KARA, (PUNJAPUTHUSSERY HOUSE),CHOORAKKOD 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 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 21.05.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.842/2019, THE COURT ON 31.05.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.514/2018 & 842/2019 -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. 842 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2017 IN OPELE NO.84 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **M/S.POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANADU, KOCHI- 682030.** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 RINI JOLLY, AGED 42 YEARS** - **W/O.JOLLY, VILLIADATH HOUSE, PONNURUNNI KARA, (PUNJAPUTHISSERY HOUSE) CHOORAKKODU KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.** - **2 SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-17. BY ADV SRI.K.C.ELDHO** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **21.05.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.514/2018, THE COURT ON 31.05.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.514/2018 & 842/2019 -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.84 of 2011. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.514 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 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 11.82 Ares comprised in ReSy.Nos.362/4 and 362/5 in Block No.27 of CRP Nos.514/2018 & 842/2019 -4- 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 palms by assessing the average number of nuts per CRP Nos.514/2018 & 842/2019 -5- 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 like mahagoni, teak, anjili, jack fruit tree 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.514/2018 & 842/2019 -6- towards diminution in land value, the court below relied on Ext.A2 sale deed as well as Exts.C1 and C1(e) commission report and plan. On consideration of the evidence on record, the land value was fixed at Rs.2,50,000/- per cent and awarded 50% of the land value as compensation for the affected area admeasuring 9.49 Ares (23.44 cents). Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.35,53,700/- 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 CRP Nos.514/2018 & 842/2019 -7- for the land affected due to the drawing of electric lines. 6. The contention of the Corporation that while adequate compensation was paid to the claimant in compliance of the orders/directions of the Government, the court below could not have altered the compensation is liable to be rejected since the court is not bound by the directions/orders issued by the Government while fixing the compensation. 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 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 CRP Nos.514/2018 & 842/2019 -8- shall forthwith be released to the claimant on her filing appropriate application. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/