High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-05-22Dismissed

SCARIYA PAUL v. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.

Case / Petition Number:CRP No.128 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V. G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2024-05-22
Court Decision / Holding: The civil revision petition is dismissed. The impugned order is affirmed; the court held that the diminution in land value at 50% of the land value and land value of Rs. 20,000 per cent are warranted given locational factors and access issues. If any amount was deposited, it shall be released on application. The entire enhanced compensation shall be paid to the petitioner within three months of receipt of a copy of this order.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SCARIYA PAUL

Respondents

DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C. P. Peethambaran

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court revision petition by Scariya Paul challenging an order awarding compensation for trees felled and diminution in land value caused by construction of 400 kV transmission lines across his 15-cent property at Kodencherry, Kozhikode. The original petition sought enhanced compensation for the loss in value of trees and the land after the lines were laid, claiming the award was inadequate and that the land value had been fixed on an improper basis. On remand, the trial court determined the yield from trees and assessed all components of diminution in land value, considering the property's locational features, accessibility, and the effect of the lines on the dwelling. The court fixed land value at Rs 20,000 per cent and held 50% of the land value as the diminution, noting that the lines were drawn at a height of about 10 metres above a portion of the house. The petitioner argued that the land value should be higher and pressed Exts A15 and A16 as appropriate comparables, while the respondent contended the petition schedule property's status as a wetland with no direct road frontage and that the existing valuation already accounts for locational features, amenities, and access. The High Court affirmed the impugned order, citing P. Raghavan v. KSEB and KSEB v. Livisha, and dismissed the revision, directing payment of the enhanced compensation within three months.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 115

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the land value fixed by the trial court was based on an inappropriate approach, using certain comparables that do not reflect the petition schedule property’s residential character and its limited access via a mud road. They contended that Exts. A15 and A16 should be considered as potential comparables, and that the land value should reflect the property’s actual accessibility and location, instead of relying on broader road frontage values. The counsel asserted that the percentage of diminution in land value, together with the land value itself, was fixed too low and that the court should refer to O.P. (Electricity) No.136 of 2010 values and improve compensation. They also invoked P. Raghavan v. KSEB (CRP 3256 of 2001) to support a higher rate of interest on additional compensation and insisted on adjusting the valuation accordingly.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent’s counsel argued that the petition schedule property is a wetland with no direct road frontage and access through a mud road, making road-frontage based land values inapplicable. The land value was fixed after considering locational features, civic amenities, and the limited access, and further enhancement would be excessive and improper. The court below found Exts. A15 and A16 inapplicable because they relate to garden lands and commercial sites, whereas the petition schedule property is a residential compound located some distance from the PWD road. The respondent contended that the court properly exercised its discretion under Section 115 CPC, placing 50% diminution on the land value and fixing the land value at Rs. 20,000 per cent, consistent with precedents like KSEB v. Livisha and other authorities. The revision petition was sought to be dismissed on these grounds."},

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
P. Raghavan v. KSEB	CRP 3256 of 2001	Positive	Cited to support directing interest on the additional compensation at 12% per annum from the date of cutting of trees till payment.
KSEB v. Livisha	(2007) 6 SCC 792	Positive	Cited for the determination of compensation by considering situs and diminution in land value, as approved by the apex court.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against SCARIYA PAUL v. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1946 CRP NO. 128 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OP NO.245 OF 2010 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **SCARIYA PAUL, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.PAULOSE, MALIYELI HOUSE, VELANKODE, KODENCHERRY VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADV C.P.PEETHAMBARAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., P.O.URAPURAM, AREEKODE, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 673639.** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **07.03.2024, THE COURT ON 22.05.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP No.128 of 2019 -2- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 22[nd] day of May, 2024 This revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-I, Kozhikode in O.P.(Electricity) No.245 of 2010. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner 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; The petitioner is in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 15 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 CRP No.128 of 2019 -3- transmission of power in the Mysore-Kozhikode sector, large number of trees were cut from the property. According to the petitioner, 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 petitioner, only small amount was granted as compensation. Hence, the petitioner filed 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, petitioner 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 CRP No.128 of 2019 -4- of the court by the petitioner. After remand, the petitioner filed a statement before the court below clarifying that he is 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 revision petitioner contended before the court below that the land value was improperly fixed on the basis of fair value extract and this resulted in the fixation of land value as well as the percentage of diminution being on the lower side. It was also contended that, the land value fixed in O.P.(Ele) No.136 of 2010 and connected cases should be considered for fixing the land value of the petition schedule property. The properties involved in Exts.A15 and A16 documents were pointed out as comparable lands and prayer CRP No.128 of 2019 -5- made to enhance the compensation accordingly. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation argued that the petition schedule property is a wetland without direct road frontage even to the Panchayat Road and access to the property is through a mud road. Therefore, the land value fixed for plots abutting PWD and Panchayat roads cannot be adopted for fixing the land value of the petition schedule property. According to the learned Counsel, the land value was fixed after considering the locational features and civic amenities available and any further enhancement will be excessive and improper. 5. Although petitioner relied on Exts.A15 and A16 documents, the court below refused to accept the properties involved in the said documents as comparable lands. It was found that, while those properties are garden lands as well as commercial sites, the petition schedule CRP No.128 of 2019 -6- property is a residential compound. The petitioner's property is situated at a distance of 41 metres from the PWD road, which is connected through a 3 metre wide mud road. The court below also found that 6.75 cents out of 15 cents is affected due to the drawing of electric lines and the electric lines were drawn at a height of only 10 metres above a portion of the house situated in the property. On consideration of the above factors along with the locational features and on comparison of the petition schedule property with the properties involved in Exts.A15 and A16 documents, the court below fixed the land value at Rs.20,000/- per cent, as against Rs.8,000/- per cent fixed earlier. As the electric lines were drawn at a height of only 10 metres above a portion of the petitioner's house, the court below had fixed the percentage of diminution at 50% of the land value before remand and the said finding was affirmed by the impugned CRP No.128 of 2019 -7- order. A table containing the compensation thus awarded is appended below; |**Sl** **No**|**Case** **No.**|**Affected** **area**|**Land** **value** **per cent**|**Percentage** **of** **diminution**|**Compensation** **payable**|**Compensation** **paid**|**Balance** **Compensation** **due**| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |**1**|**OP** **245/10**|**6.75**|**20,000**|**50%**|**67,500**|**27,000**|**40,500**| In view of the decision of this Court in _**P.Raghavan v. KSEB [CRP No.3256 of 2001]**_ , the interest on the additional compensation was directed to be paid at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of cutting of trees till the date of payment. 6. Heard learned Counsel appearing on either side. 7. 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 CRP No.128 of 2019 -8- vested with the court was properly exercised by affirming 50% of the land value as compensation for the land affected due to the drawing of electric lines. As such, there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, warranting this Court's interference 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. If any amount is deposited pursuant to the order of this Court or otherwise, the same shall forthwith be released to the petitioner on his filing appropriate application. The entire enhanced compensation shall be paid to the petitioner within three months of receipt of a copy of this order. **==> picture [46 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [182 x 24] intentionally omitted <==** Scl/