Claimant sought enhanced compensation for trees cut and diminution in land value caused by drawing of 400 KV transmission lines across his property. Court upheld the district court's compensation methodology, including 8% interest, rejecting the Corporation's objections, and dismissed both cross revision petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946
CRP NO. 197 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2017 IN OPELE NO.188 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
GOPINATHAN NAIR AGED 71 YEARS AGED 71, S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, PERUMBILLIYIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.S.RENJITH SRI.K.R.PRATHISH
RESPONDENT/S:
2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-17.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP V.TEKCHAND ,SR.GP K.P.HARISH
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.06.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.646/2019, THE COURT ON 12.06.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019
-2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946
CRP NO. 646 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2017 IN OPELE NO.188 OF 2011 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 GOPINATHAN NAIR, AGED 73 YEARS S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, PERUMBILLIYIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, PIN683545.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.06.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.197/2018, THE COURT ON 12.06.2024,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019
-3-
ORDER
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2024
These revision petitions are filed
challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge, North Paravur in O.P. (Electricity) No.188 of 2011. The original
petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.197 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 21.20 Ares in Rayamangalam Village. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. In order to facilitate
CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019
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.
and Adv.Millu Dandapani for the Corporation.
sustained due to cutting of yielding rubber trees based on an assessment that 13 Kilograms of latex can be obtained from a rubber tree per year and multiplying it with the price of one kilogram. Based on such assessment, the net income was
CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019
-5-
fixed after deducting expenses. Likewise, the loss sustained due to cutting of yielding coconut palms was calculated 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. Similar method was adopted for calculating the loss sustained due to the cutting of areca palm and pepper vines. For reckoning the compensation amount payable, 8 was taken as the multiplier. Further, the court below fixed the compensation for the jackfruit,
Macaranga peltala (vatta), anjili and other trees with reference to the Advocate Commissioner's report and based on a rough estimation. Being so, this Court finds the procedure adopted by the court below to be just and proper.
CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019
-6-
and C1(g) commission report and plan. On
consideration of the evidence on record, the land value was fixed at Rs.40,000/- per cent and awarded 50% of the land value as compensation for the affected area admeasuring 17.63 Ares (43.55 cents). Thus, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.23,46,400/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
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 for the
land affected due to the drawing of electric lines.
CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019
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 paid within three months of receipt of a copy of this order. Considering the fact that the
CRP Nos.197/2018 & 646/2019
claimant is no more, the enhanced compensation and the amount, if any deposited pursuant to the order of this Court or otherwise, shall be released to the legal heirs of the claimant (Respondents 3 and 4 in CRP No.646 of 2019) on
their filing appropriate application.
V.G.ARUN JUDGE
Scl/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court-below's assessment of compensation for trees cut and land value diminution due to 400 KV power lines was correct?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
KSEB v LivishaRelied on¶5
(2007) 6 SCC 792 · Who else cites this
Gopinathan Nair
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
Special Tahsildar (LA), Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
Lalitha P.G.
Ajithkumar
V.G.Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
