Santhosh v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd

## **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. 562 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.170 OF 2012 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** ## **SANTHOSH** **AGED 42, SA/O. RAMAN, OMAKUDY HOUSE, VENGOLA KARA,ARAKKAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.S.RENJITH SRI.K.R.PRATHISH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682 030, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR** - **2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-17** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR.GP.K.PHARISH; SR.GP.V.TEKCHAND** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.05.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.667/2019, THE COURT ON 31.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.562/2018 & 667/2019 -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. 667 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 14.12.2017 IN OPELE NO.170 OF 2012 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030** **BY ADV ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 SANTHOSH AGED 48 YEARS S/O.RAMAN, OMAKUY HOUSE, VENGOLA KARA, ARACKKAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, KUNNATHUNAD.P.O-683545** - **2 SPECIAL THASILDHAR (LA), POWER GRID, CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-673017 BY ADVS. S.RENJITH (K/659/2004.)-20925 P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **21.05.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.562/2018, THE COURT ON 31.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.562/2018 & 667/2019 -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.170 of 2012. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.562 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 19.84 Ares. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. In order to facilitate drawing of lines for the CRP Nos.562/2018 & 667/2019 -4- 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.S.Renjith 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 total 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.562/2018 & 667/2019 -5- cutting of yielding 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 immature falling and expenses. For reckoning the compensation amount payable, 8 was taken as the multiplier. Further, the court below fixed the compensation for cutting of other trees at Rs.2,000/-. 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.A2 sale deed as well as Exts.C1 and C1(f) commission report and sketch. It was found that the petition schedule property is a partly converted land. Based on these factors and on consideration of the potentiality of the property as reported by the Commissioner, the land value CRP Nos.562/2018 & 667/2019 -6- was fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- per cent and awarded 25% of the land value as compensation for the affected area admeasuring 14.54 Ares (35.91 cents). Taking note of the fact that an extent of 2.33 Ares (5.76 cents) was covered by the tower, the court below granted 100% of the land value to the claimant. Thus, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.15,56,500/- 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 25% of the land value as compensation for the land affected due to the drawing of electric CRP Nos.562/2018 & 667/2019 -7- lines and 100% of the land value for the extent covered by the tower. 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 revision petitions filed by the claimant as well as the Corporation are dismissed. The enhanced compensation fixed by the court below shall be CRP Nos.562/2018 & 667/2019 -8- 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. **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/