IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation for land and trees affected by electric lines must reflect credible evidence of property value and loss of use, adhering to established legal guidelines.

ORDER :

1. Common questions arise for consideration in all these Civil Revision Petitions. The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited drew 400 KV double circuit lines through the properties of the claimants. The respective claimants filed petitions under Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act read with Section 151 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 42 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 before the Additional District Court, North Paravur, claiming enhanced compensation under various heads. The Trial Court allowed those applications. The claimants approached this Court contending that the compensation awarded is meagre, whereas the Power Grid Corporation challenged the awards contending that the amount awarded is exorbitant.

CRP Nos. 426 of 2019 and 139 of 2020

2. The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited had drawn a 400 KV electric line through the property of the claimant comprised in Sy.No.337/6 of Arackappady Village. The property was a wet land, cultivated with various crops including plantains. The Corporation quantified the compensation as Rs.25,263/-. The Trial Court granted a sum of Rs.12,17,237/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% from 04.07.2011 till the date of realisation.

CRP No.474 of 2019 and 137 of 2020

3. The case of the claimants is that their property is used for the purpose of drawing 400 KV Cochin-Trichur electric line. The claimants received only an amount of Rs.7,12,170/- towards compensation for various trees cut and removed from their property. The Trial Court granted a sum of Rs.86,15,600/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of cutting of trees till the date of realisation.

CRP No.580 of 2018 and 44 of 2020

4. The case of the claimant is that he is the owner in possession of 26.15 Ares of property comprised in Re.Sy.Nos.203/2, 203/17, 203/4 of Rayamangalam Village. The land is very fertile, cultivated with yielding and non- yielding trees. For the purpose of drawing 400 KV Kochi- Trichur electric line through his property, trees were cut and removed by the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited. The Trial Court granted a sum of Rs.85,13,500/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of cutting of trees till the date of realisation.

CRP No.533 of 2018 and 664 of 2019

5. The case of the claimant is that she is the owner in possession of 34.8 Ares of property comprised in Re.Sy.Nos. 205/2, 205/3 and 205/4 of Rayamangalam Village. The land is very fertile, cultivated with yielding and non-yielding trees. For the purpose of drawing 400 KV Kochi- Trichur electric line through her property, trees were cut and removed by the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited. The Trial Court granted a sum of Rs.11,59,100/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of cutting of trees till the date of realisation.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimants, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Special Tahasildar.

7. The common grounds raised by the claimants are the following:-

(a) The compensation for diminution in land value granted is too low, in view of the fact that the value of the entire properties is affected by way of drawing the line.

(b) The land value determined by the District Court is too low.

(c) The properties of the claimants are situated in prominent places in the locality with road access.

(d) The situs of the land was not considered while awarding compensation.

8. The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited raised the following contentions:-

The land value fixed by the Trial Court for awarding compensation towards diminution in the land value is much higher than the fair value fixed by the Government. The claimants did not place any credible materials to establish the land value, and therefore, the Trial Court should have relied on the fair value fixed by the Government. The report of the Commissioner is not