Dismissed

The Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. K.C.Ishac

Kerala HC26 Jun 2024CRP/763/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order enhancing compensation for loss of land value and trees due to the laying of power lines. The Court found no illegality in the Trial Court's assessment method or the award of interest.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed with no order for costs, confirming the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs K.C.Ishac — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

CRP NO. 763 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2017 IN OPELE NO.183 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , NORTH PARAVUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶8

THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030.

¶9

BY ADVS. ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA ROJO JOSEPH S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(S-571)

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 K.C.ISHAC, AGED 95 YEARS C/O CHACKO, KIZHAKKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK683 545.

¶12

2 K.I.KURIAKKOSE, AGED 63 YEARS S/O ISHAC, KIZHAKKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK683 545.

¶13

3 SPECIAL THASILDAR, (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 017.

¶14

4 ADDL.R4. K.I.MATHAI AGED 61 YEARS S/O K.C. ISHAC KIZHAKKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, 683541.

¶15

5 ADDL.R5. MARY AGED 70 YEARS D/O K.C. ISHAC KIZHAKKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, 683541.

¶16

CRP No.763/2019

¶17

-2-

¶18

6 ADDL.R6. K.I.YACOB AGED 64 YEARS S/O K.C. ISHAC KIZHAKKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, 683541. BY ADVS. P.C.HARIDAS SURESH V.S. P.S.GOVIND

¶19

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CRP No.763/2019

-3-

ORDER

Dated this the 26^th day of June, 2024

¶24

The revision petitioner, Power Grid

¶25

Corporation of India Ltd ('the Corporation' for short), is aggrieved by the enhanced compensation ordered to be paid to the first respondent ('the claimant' for short), consequent upon the drawing of 400 KV electric lines across his property by the Corporation. The essential facts are as under;

¶26

In order to facilitate 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 meager amount was paid to the claimant as compensation for the loss sustained. Hence, the

¶27

CRP No.763/2019

¶28

-4-

¶29

original petition was filed, seeking enhanced compensation towards the value of trees cut and diminution of land value.

¶30

Heard learned Counsel appearing on

¶31

either side.

¶32

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the court below assessed the loss sustained due to cutting of yielding areca palm by reckoning the average yield from each palm and multiplying it with the price of one arecanut. Based on such assessment, the net income was assessed after deducting loss due to natural causes and expenses. Similar method was adopted for calculating the loss sustained due to the cutting of coconut trees, pepper vines and nutmeg trees. Further, the compensation for cutting of mango, jackfruit, vatta, kudampuli and anjili trees was fixed based on the assessment made by the Advocate Commissioner and on a rough estimation by the court. Being so, the procedure

¶33

CRP No.763/2019

¶34

adopted by the court below cannot be faulted. For reckoning the compensation amount payable, '8' was taken as the multiplier.

¶35

A perusal of the impugned order shows that, for the purpose of fixing the compensation towards diminution in land value, the court below relied on Ext.C1(e) plan and took note of the fact that the petition schedule property is having road frontage. On consideration of the evidence on record, the land value was fixed at Rs.60,000/- per cent and 50% of the land value was fixed as compensation for the affected area admeasuring 5.70 Ares (14.08 cents). Thus, the claimant was awarded a compensation of Rs.11,53,500/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.

¶36

On careful scrutiny of the impugned

¶37

order, it is seen that the compensation towards diminution in land value was fixed based on factors like situs of the land, the extent to

¶38

CRP No.763/2019

¶39

-6-

¶40

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.

¶41

The contention of the Corporation that

¶42

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 also being without merit, is liable to be rejected. In view of the decision of this

¶43

Court in KSEB v Maranchi Matha [2008 (1) KLT

¶44

CRP No.763/2019

¶45

-7-

¶46

1038] , the argument that the court below has transgressed its jurisdiction, by granting interest from the 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.

¶47

For the aforementioned reasons, the civil

¶48

revision petition is dismissed.

¶49

sd/-

¶50

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶51

Scl/

The Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. K.C.Ishac

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. K.C.Ishac

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

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs Jameela K.

Ganesh Vs State of Kerala

Thundiyil Sunny @ Philip.T.v Vs State of Kerala

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Jacob. K.P

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs Annamma

Gurudeva College of Advanced Studies, Koyilandy Vs State of Kerala