Dismissed

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. Annamma

Kerala HC3 Jul 2024CRP/767/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected the appeal by Power Grid Corporation against enhanced compensation for diminution in land value. The Court held the lower court order was legally sound, principles of KSEB v. Livisha were correctly applied, and government guidelines were not mandatory binding constraints on judicial discretion regarding interest and value fixation.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed; no interference with the order of the lower court.

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs Annamma — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY 2024 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

CRP NO. 767 OF 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2018 IN OP NO.263 OF 2009

¶7

OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, KOZHIKODE

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶9

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER, UGRAPURAM, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV E.M.MURUGAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 ANNAMMA W/O V.J JOSEPH. VETTIKKAMALAYIL(H), THEYYAPPARA P.O, KOODATHAI VILLAGE, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT , PIN 673001

¶12

2 LILLY

¶13

D/O. V.J. JOSEPH, VETTIKKAMALAYIL(H), THEYYAPPARA P.O, KOODATHAI VILLAGE, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT , PIN 673001.

¶14

3 MARY D/O. V.J JOSEPH. VETTIKKAMALAYIL(H), THEYYAPPARA P.O, KOODATHAI VILLAGE, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT , PIN 673001

¶15

4 DEVASSIA

¶16

S/O.V.J JOSEPH. VETTIKKAMALAYIL(H), THEYYAPPARA P.O, KOODATHAI VILLAGE, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT , PIN 673001

¶17

5 MOLIKUTTY D/O.V.J JOSEPH. VETTIKKAMALAYIL(H), THEYYAPPARA P.O, KOODATHAI VILLAGE, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT , PIN 673001

¶18

6 ROSSAMMA, W/O.DECEASED SON KURIAKOSE, VETTIKKAMALAYIL(H), THEYYAPPARA P.O, KOODATHAI VILLAGE, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT , PIN 673001

¶19

CRP No.767 of 2018

¶20

-2-

¶21

7 REKHA,

¶22

D/O.DECEASED SON KURIAKOSE, VETTIKKAMALAYIL(H), THEYYAPPARA P.O, KOODATHAI VILLAGE, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT , PIN 673001

¶23

8 REMYA D/O.DECEASED SON KURIAKOSE, VETTIKKAMALAYIL(H), THEYYAPPARA P.O, KOODATHAI VILLAGE, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT , PIN 673001

¶24

9 ROBIN, S/O.DECEASED SON KURIAKOSE, VETTIKKAMALAYIL(H), THEYYAPPARA P.O, KOODATHAI VILLAGE, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT , PIN 673001

¶25

10 EKKACHAN JOSEPH

¶26

S/O.LATE V.J.JOSEPH, VETTIKKAMALAYIL (H), THEYYAPPARA P.O, KOODATHAI VILLAGE, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT , PIN 673001

¶27

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶28

03.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CRP No.767 of 2018

-3-

ORDER

Dated this the 3^rd day of July, 2024

¶33

The revision petitioner, Power Grid

¶34

Corporation of India Ltd ('the Corporation' for short), is aggrieved by the enhanced compensation ordered to be paid to the respondents towards diminution in land value, consequent upon the drawing of 400 KV electric lines across their property by the Corporation. The essential facts are as under;

¶35

The respondents is in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 40 cents comprised in Survey 1/1 of Koodathai Village. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. In order to facilitate drawing of 400 KV electric lines for the smooth transmission of power in the MysoreKozhikode sector, large number of trees were cut

¶36

CRP No.767 of 2018

¶37

-4-

¶38

from the respondents' property. According to the respondents, 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 respondents, only small 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 respondents 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 respondents.

¶39

After remand, the respondents filed a statement before the court below clarifying that

¶40

CRP No.767 of 2018

¶41

he is not claiming additional compensation for loss in value of improvements. Accordingly, the court below considered the claim for enhanced compensation towards diminution in land value alone and passed the impugned order.

¶42

Heard learned Counsel appearing on

¶43

either side.

¶44

Learned Counsel for the revision

¶45

petitioner Corporation contended that the land value fixed is not based on legal evidence.

¶46

Further, the additional compensation awarded is unreasonable and the diminution in land value, far in excess of the percentage fixed by the Government. Per contra, learned Counsel for the

¶47

respondent argued that the enhancement is reasonable and has been granted after considering all relevant factors.

¶48

A perusal of the impugned order shows

¶49

that the court below took note of the fact that

¶50

an extent of 13.75 cents is affected due to the

¶51

drawing of electric lines and going by the manner

¶52

CRP No.767 of 2018

¶53

-6-

¶54

in which the lines were drawn, more than half of

¶55

the petition schedule property is affected, was also taken into account. Relying on Exts C1 commission report and C1(a) plan, the court below found that the petition schedule property is situated at a distance of 3 Km away from NH 212 and Kodencherry Town. The Advocate Commissioner had also reported about the civic amenities available within a radius of 200 to 400 metres. Based on the said factors and on a comparison of the petition schedule property with the property included in O.P.No.228 of 2009 and connected cases, the land value was fixed as Rs. 30,000/per cent and 30% of the land value was directed to be paid as compensation. A table containing the compensation thus awarded is appended below;

¶56

Case No.	Affected area (in cents)	Land value per cent	Percentage of diminution	Compensation payable	Compensation paid	Balance Compensation due
OP 263/ 2009	13.75	30,000	30%	1,23,750	13,750	1,10,000
6.	On	carefu	l scru	tiny o	f the	impugned

¶57

order, it is seen that the compensation payable

¶58

CRP No.767 of 2018

¶59

-7-

¶60

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

¶61

[(2007) 6 SCC 792].

¶62

The contention of the Corporation that

¶63

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

¶64

of diminution in accordance with the same is liable to be rejected since the court is not

¶65

bound by the guidelines/orders issued by the

¶66

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

¶67

Court in P.Raghavan v. KSEB [CRP No.3256 of 2001]. In view of the decision of this Court in

¶68

CRP No.767 of 2018

¶69

-8-

¶70

KSEB v Maranchi Matha [2008 (1) KLT 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.

¶71

For the aforementioned reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed.

¶72

sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶73

Scl/

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. Annamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. Annamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs Jameela K.

Gurudeva College of Advanced Studies, Koyilandy Vs State of Kerala

K.Sadanandan Vs District Police Chief

Tintu Varghese Vs the National Institute of Open Schooling (Nios)