Corporation challenged enhanced compensation for diminution in land value caused by drawing 400 KV power lines over the respondent's land. The court found the compensation fixed on sound evidence per KSEB v. Livisha, held Government guidelines not binding and interest awards justified, and dismissed the revision petition.
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
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1946
CRP NO. 601 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 08.03.2018 IN OPELE NO.279 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE / I ADDITIONAL MACT, KOZHIKODE REVISION PETITIONER:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER, UGRAPURAM, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV SRI.E.M.MURUGAN
RESPONDENT:
JACOB. K.P
S/O. PAULOSE, KALAKKATH, KOLAKKAT (H), VELANKODE P.O., VELANKODE AMSOM DESOM, KODENCHERY.
BY ADV SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.07.2018, THE COURT ON 27.06.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP No.601 of 2018
-2-
ORDER
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2024
The revision petitioner, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd ('the Corporation' for short), is aggrieved by the enhanced compensation ordered to be paid to the respondent towards diminution in land value, consequent upon the drawing of 400 KV electric lines across his property by the Corporation. The essential facts are as under;
In order to facilitate drawing of 400 KV electric lines for the smooth transmission of power in the Mysore-Kozhikode sector, large number of trees were cut from the respondent's property. According to the respondent, 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 respondent, only small
CRP No.601 of 2018
amount was granted as compensation. Hence, the original petition was filed, seeking enhanced compensation towards the value of trees cut and diminution in land value. Being dissatisfied with the enhanced compensation ordered by the court, the respondent 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 of the court by the respondent.
loss of yield. Hence, the court below only
CRP No.601 of 2018
considered the claim for enhanced compensation towards diminution in land value and passed the impugned order.
either side.
lands and nature of those transactions, the court below found that the properties involved in
CRP No.601 of 2018
-5-
Exts.A8 and A9, and the petition schedule property are not similar or similarly situated. Relying on Ext.C1 commissioner's report, Ext.C7 plan and the evidence tendered by PW2, it was found that the petition schedule property, which is an agricultural land, had no direct road access and is connected to the nearby 'sadak' road by a mud road having a length of 10 metres. Based on the said factors,the Court below fixed Rs. 25,000/- per cent as the land value and 30% of the land value was directed to be paid as compensation. A table containing the compensation
thus awarded is appended below;
| Sl No |
Case No. |
Affected area (in cents) |
Land value per cent |
Percentage of diminution |
Compensation payable |
Compensation paid |
Balance Compensation due |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | OP 279/ 2011 |
29 | 25,000 | 30% | 2,17,500 | 34,800 | 1,82,700 |
which the land is adversely affected and
CRP No.601 of 2018
consequent diminution in the value of the land, as laid down by the Apex Court in KSEB v. Livisha
[(2007) 6 SCC 792].
the Government having fixed the fair value of the land and also issued guidelines for the fixation of the percentage of diminution, the court below ought to have fixed the land value and percentage
of diminution 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 12% interest cannot also be sustained in the light of the decision of this
Court in P.Raghavan v. KSEB [CRP No.3256 of
2001]. In view of the decision of this Court in
KSEB v Maranchi Matha [2008 (1) KLT 1038] , the
contention that the court below has transgressed its jurisdiction, by granting interest from the
CRP No.601 of 2018
date of cutting of trees, 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 petition is dismissed.
V.G.ARUN
Scl/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the enhanced compensation for diminution in land value fixed by the court below, disregarding Government fair value guidelines, was sustainable.
Whether award of 12% interest and interest from the date of cutting of trees was permissible.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
KSEB v. LivishaApplied¶6
(2007) 6 SCC 792 · Who else cites this
P.Raghavan v. KSEBRelied on¶7
CRP No.3256 of 2001
KSEB v Maranchi MathaRelied on¶7
2008 (1) KLT 1038
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd
Jacob. K.P
V.G.Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
