Sulfikkar vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946 CRP NO. 296 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2013 IN OPELE NO.252 OF 2005 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,KOLLAM** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **SULFIKKAR AGED 42 YEARS S/O.ABDUL VAHEED,KANDAMCHIRA PUTHEN VEEDU,THINKALKKARIKAM,PATHANAPURAM TALUK REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HIMA RESIDING AT KANDAMCHIRA PUTHEN VEEDU,THINKALKKARIKAM,PATHANAPURAM BY ADV SRI.ARUN BABU** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD PONGUMOODU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOIR 695 001** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP No.296 of 2014 -2- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 04[th] day of June, 2024 This revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District CRP No.296 of 2014 -3- Judge-II, Kollam in O.P.(Electricity) No.252 of 2005. 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 High Tension Transmission 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 23.4 cents in Thinkalkarikkam Village. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the petitioner, to facilitate drawing of lines for the smooth transmission of power, large number of trees were cut from his 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 CRP No.296 of 2014 -4- suffered by the petitioner, only an amount of Rs.1,31,663/- was paid as compensation towards the value of yielding and non-yielding trees cut. Surprisingly, no compensation was granted for diminution in land value. Hence, the original petition was filed, seeking enhanced compensation towards the value of trees cut and diminution in land value. 2. The court below found that the compensation fixed by the Corporation is not in consonance with the findings in _**Airports Authority of India** v._ _**Satyagopal Roy [(2002) 3 SCC 527]**_ and _**KSEB** v._ _**Livisha [(2007) 6 SCC 792]**_ and is therefore not just and proper. Thereafter, based on Ext.A14, the deposition of the Agricultural Officer, Chavara produced in another original petition and the deposition of the petitioner, the yield of the trees and its value were assessed and fixed. For ascertaining the diminution in land value, the court below CRP No.296 of 2014 -5- referred to Ext.A13 sale deed and the Advocate Commissioner's report and plan. Thus, based on such fixation, Rs.18,450/- was granted as compensation for diminution of land value and Rs.2,26,130/- for the value of trees cut. Thus, final compensation was fixed as Rs.88,459/- by deducting the amount already paid towards the yielding and non-yielding trees cut. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below had grossly erred in assessing the value of trees and in fixing the diminution in land value. It is submitted that after accepting Ext.A14 in evidence, the court below made substantial reduction from the yield stated by the Agricultural Officer in Ext.A14, without assigning any reason. Likewise, in spite of finding that the petitioner's property and the property covered by Ext.A13 sale deed are situated in nearby locality and even after accepting the report of the Advocate Commissioner CRP No.296 of 2014 -6- that the petitioner's property is situated in an important locality, the land value was fixed at Rs.6,000/- per cent as against Rs.40,000/- per cent in Ext.A13 sale deed. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that the well considered order of the court below warrants no interference. 5. Having carefully considered the contentions, I find substantial merit in the argument put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner. As rightly contended, after accepting the deposition of the Agricultural Officer under Section 32(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, treating it to be the opinion made by an official in relation to his professional duty about the existence of matters of public or general importance, the court below has fixed the annual yield and the price of various agricultural products at deviance from the CRP No.296 of 2014 -7- statement of the expert. Moreover, no reason is assigned for such deviance also. Further, the court below has adopted 8 as the multiplier which appears to be contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in _**Sk. Imambi v. Collector [(2011)**_ _**11 SCC 639]**_ , the relevant portion of which reads as under; “ _6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the multiplier should not be less than 14 adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer. We cannot accept the contention of the appellant. Having regard to the consistent view taken by this Court, we are of the view that the High Court was right in holding that the multiplier should be 10. This Court has repeatedly held that the standard multiplier should be 10; and that in special circumstances based upon specific evidence regarding the nature, standard, condition of the orchard, the Court may apply a higher multiplier of 12 or 13 or a lower multiplier of 8.”_ 6. With respect to the fixation of land value also, even though the court below is right CRP No.296 of 2014 -8- in holding that the value of the property cannot be determined based on the oral evidence of the petitioner alone, the value could not have been reduced to a meagre amount of Rs.6,000/- per cent, without reasons. For the aforementioned reasons, I find the court below to have erred in fixing the value of trees as well as the land value. Being so, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration and determination of just and proper compensation, taking into account all relevant factors. The original petition being of the year 2005, the court below shall take earnest efforts to dispose of the matter within four months of receipt of a copy of this order. **Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/