Yousuf Rawther v Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** **CRP NO. 639 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.06.2013 IN OPELE NO.218 OF 2006 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **YOUSUF RAWTHER AGED 56 YEARS W/O SREENIVASAN,RAJEEV BHAVAN,KALLUVETTAMKUZHY MURI,MANKODE.P.O,CHITHARA VILLAGE,KOTTARAKKARA TALUK.** **BY ADV SRI.R.KISHORE** **RESPONDENT/S:** **POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD PANGUMOODU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR-695001.** **BY ADV SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP No.639 of 2013 -2- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 20[th] day of December, 2023 This revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-II, Kollam in O.P.(Electricity) No.218 of 2006. 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 1.37 Acres in Chithara Village. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the petitioner, to facilitate drawing of the lines and smooth transmission of power, large number of trees were cut from his CRP No.639 of 2013 -3- 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 by the petitioner, only an amount of Rs.1,70,017/- 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.A9, the deposition of the Agricultural Officer, Chithara and the deposition CRP No.639 of 2013 -4- 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 referred to Ext.A8 sale deed and the Advocate Commissioner's report and plan. Thus, based on such fixation, the compensation was granted for diminution of land value at Rs.69,891/- and the loss due to the cutting of yielding trees at Rs.4,87,860/-. Thus, the final compensation was then fixed as Rs.3,17,843/- by deducting the amount already paid to the petitioner. 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.A9 in evidence, the court below made substantial reduction from the yield stated by the Agricultural Officer in Ext.A9, without assigning any reason. Likewise, in spite of finding that the petitioner's property and the CRP No.639 of 2013 -5- property covered by Ext.A8 sale deed are situated in nearby locality and even after accepting the report of the Advocate Commissioner 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.A8 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 CRP No.639 of 2013 -6- general importance, the court below has fixed the annual yield and the price of various agricultural products at deviance from the statement of the expert. Moreover, no reason is assigned for such deviance also. Further, the court below has adopted 8 as the multiplier which is 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.”_ CRP No.639 of 2013 -7- As such, the court below ought to have adopted 10 as the multiplier. 6. With respect to the fixation of land value also, the court below went wrong in fixing the land value at Rs.6,000/- per cent after finding that the property covered by Ext.A8 is a comparable land and that, the petitioner's property is situated in an important locality and near to a road. In such circumstances, the court below was bound to give reasons for fixing the land value at Rs.6,000/- per cent as against the land value of Rs.40,000/- shown in Ext.A8 document. For the aforementioned reasons, I find that 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 CRP No.639 of 2013 -8- determination of just and proper compensation, taking into account all relevant factors. The original petition being of the year 2006, 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/