Allowed

Abdul Kalam v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Kerala HC4 Jun 2024CRP/295/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition against compensation awarded for trees cut and land value diminution caused by drawing 400 KV transmission lines across the petitioner's land. The High Court found the assessment deviated from expert evidence and used an incorrect multiplier, set aside the order, and remanded for fresh determination.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; original petition remanded to court below for fresh consideration and fixation of just compensation within four months.

Abdul Kalam Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

CRP NO. 295 OF 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2013 IN OPELE NO.389 OF 2006 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶7

ABDUL KALAM

¶8

AGED 69, S/O. MUTHULAB, KUNNUVILA VEEDU, VALAVU PACHA MURI, CHITHARA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV SRI.ARUN BABU

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. PONGUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - 695 001.

¶12

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶13

ON 04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CRP No.295 of 2014

-2-

ORDER

Dated this the 04^th day of June, 2024

¶18

This revision petition is filed challenging

¶19

the order passed by the Additional District Judge-II, Kollam in O.P.(Electricity) No.389 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;

¶20

The petitioner is in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 1.85 Acres in Chithara 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

¶21

CRP No.295 of 2014

¶22

-3-

¶23

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 suffered by the petitioner, only an amount of Rs.5,90,420/- 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.

¶24

The court below found that the

¶25

compensation fixed by the Corporation is not in consonance with the findings in Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy [(2002) 3

¶26

SCC 527] and KSEB v. Livisha [(2007) 6 SCC 792]

¶27

and is therefore not just and proper. Thereafter, based on Ext.A14, the deposition of the Deputy

¶28

CRP No.295 of 2014

¶29

-4-

¶30

Rubber Production Commissioner, Kottarakkara, as well as Ext.A15, 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 referred to Ext.A13 sale deed and the Advocate Commissioner's report and plan. Thus, based on such fixation, Rs.1,48,125/- was granted as compensation for diminution of land value and Rs.14,95,682/- for the value of trees cut. Similarly, the court below has granted Rs.12,000/- for the area covered by the tower.

¶31

Thus, the final compensation was fixed as Rs.9,48,424/- by deducting the amount already paid towards the yielding and non-yielding trees cut.

¶32

Learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶33

contended that the court below had grossly erred

¶34

CRP No.295 of 2014

¶35

-5-

¶36

in assessing the value of trees cut and in fixing

¶37

the diminution in land value. It is submitted that after accepting Exts.A14 and A15 in evidence, the court below made substantial reduction from the yield, 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

¶38

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.A10 sale deed.

¶39

Learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that the well considered order of the court below warrants no

¶40

interference.

¶41

Having carefully considered the contentions, I find substantial merit in the

¶42

CRP No.295 of 2014

¶43

-6-

¶44

argument put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner. As rightly contended, after accepting the depositions of the Deputy Rubber Production Commissioner and Agricultural Officer under Section 32(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, treating it to be the opinions made by officials in relation to their 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

¶45

products at deviance from the statements of the experts. Moreover, no reason is assigned for such deviance also. Further, the court below has

¶46

adopted 8 as the multiplier which appears to be contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court

¶47

in Sk. Imambi v. Collector [(2011) 11 SCC 639] ,

¶48

the relevant portion of which reads as under;

¶49

“ 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

¶50

CRP No.295 of 2014

¶51

-7-

¶52

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.”

¶53

6. With respect to the fixation of land

¶54

value also, even though the court below is right 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 valid reasons.

¶55

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.

¶56

In the result, the civil revision petition is

¶57

CRP No.295 of 2014

¶58

-8-

¶59

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 2006, the court below shall take earnest efforts to dispose of the matter within four months of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶62

Scl/

Abdul Kalam v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Kalam v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tessy Mathai Vs Power Gried Corporation

Jolly Vs Power Grid Corporation of India

Omana Vs Power Grid Corporation India Ltd.

Madanlal Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Sulfikkar Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Simon Alexander, Vs the State of Kerala