Powergrid Corporation of India Limited, Rep. by its Assistant Manager, Udumalpet vs K. Radhakrishnan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(Mad) 1426

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
Powergrid Corporation of India Limited, Rep. by its Assistant Manager, Udumalpet - Petitioner
Versus
K. Radhakrishnan & Others - Respondents
CRP. Nos. 863 to 867, 567 to 569, 1463 to 1466, 449 to 458, 655 to 657, 769 to 771 of 2005 & 2722 to 2731 of 2010 & CMP. Nos. 3426, 5665 of 2004 & 3692 & 3693 of 2005
Decided On : 11-02-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:R. Ravi, Advocate
For the Respondents:C. Prakasam, Advocate

Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 16(3) - Land Acquisition Act,1894 - Section 23 - Indian Telegraph Act 1885 - Section 10 - Cutting down of trees - Claim Of compensation - Power grid Corporation of India Limited in process of laying high tension wires in space over lands of various farmers virtually was constrained to invoke provisions of Indian Telegraph Act and consequently after complying with necessary provisions started using concerned portions of land and that too after cutting down trees in process of laying such high tension electric wire - Authority concerned after issuing notice conducted enquiry and assessed value of compensation payable to respective land owners - On being objected to by land owners matter was referred to District Court for adjudication - After hearing both sides District Judge passed orders - Some of land owners have prayed for enhancement of compensation and Power grid Corporation has prayed for reducing same awarded by District Judge - Whether valuation of coconut trees is correct - Whether high voltage line passes over a small track of land or through middle of land value of land and other relevant factors will have to be kept in mind for determining compensation - Whether compensation arrived at by District Judge in as much as value and multiplier adopted pertaining to life and yield of a coconut Tree is liable to be interfered with or affirmed? - Held, Court remit matter to High Court - High Court shall after hearing appellants and respondents consider question whether coconut trees are undervalued in context of argument that there is diminution of value of entire land and having regard to fact that multiplier method is applied - Court make it clear that remand is only for limited purpose stated above and scope of remand shall not be expanded - Court leave all questions of law and fact open - Nothing said by us in this judgment should be treated as expression of our opinion on merits of case - Court also make it clear that remand is limited appellants before us - Owner of land may lose their right to use property that also will be considered while determining diminution of land value but trial court not considered same and simply stated that petitioners are not prayed for but when they prepared CRP before this Court they filed memo to that aspect and same was accepted by this Court hence diminution of land value also should decide when respondents erecting electricity towers at area of cents since they erected four tower posts and hence petitioners could not use same and moreover under tower electrical line agricultural should not supposed to utilize land and cattle also cannot be tied in tower poles and hence they lost land value and hence that may be considered while fixing compensation - This Court shall borne in mind about diminishing of petitioners land value and other relevant factors - Court in full agreement with said observation made by Hon’ble Apex Court naturally after erection of High Tension Tower Line over land of petitioners value of land will be reduced compared with other lands and further they cannot do any agricultural operation in between high voltage tower - Therefore District Judge while fixing compensation should have also taken into consideration of above said factor of diminution of land value - But in this case District Judge has not considered factum of diminution of market value of land of petitioners - Court of view that value of yield per coconut tree arrived by District Judge cannot be said to be proper and therefore it is liable to be increased that petitioners are entitled to compensation at rate of per coconut tree - Hence as discussed above petitioners are entitled to get compensation per coconut tree for years at rate - Petition Dismissed

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 16(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Orders of the Curt of the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, dated 30.04.2004 in O.P.No.192 of 1990.)

1. CRP.Nos.863 to 867 of 2005, 769 to 771 of 2005, 567 to 569, 1463 to 1466, 449 to 458 and 655 to 657 of 2005 are filed by the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, and C.R.P.Nos.2722 to 2731 of 2005 are filed by the land owners as against the common order dated 30.04.2004 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge Coimbatore in the respect of OPs.

2. As the issue involved in all these civil revision petitions are one and the same and all these civil revision petitions are arising out of common order, hence this court decided to dispose the above civil revision petitions by this common order.

3. A recapitulation and resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these revision petitions would run thus:

(i) The Power grid Corporation of India Limited, in the process of laying high tension wires in the space over the lands of various farmers, virtually, was constrained to invoke the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), and consequently after complying with the necessary provisions, started using the concerned portions of the land and that too after cutting down trees, in the process of laying such high tension electric wire.

(ii) The authority concerned, after issuing notice conducted enquiry and assessed the value of compensation payable to the respective land owners.

(iii) On being objected to by the land owners, the matter was referred to the District Court for adjudication. After hearing both sides, the learned District Judge passed the orders. The following tabulation would reveal the details:

S.No C.R.P. No NO. of Trees cut down Value assessed and awarded by the Court below

1. 863 141 5000/-

2. 655 77 5000/-

3. 864 129 6000/-

4. 769 28 6000/-

5. 771 48+1 5000/-+1000/-

6. 770 - -

7. 865 108 5000/-

8. 867 33 5000/-

9. 866 31 5000/-

10. 457 61 5000/-

11. 456 93 5000/-

12. 568 70 5000/-

13. 455 1 5000/-

4. Being aggrieved by such assessment, both the Power grid Corporation of India as well as land owners (Petitioners herein) preferred these civil revision petitions as stated above.

5. In fact, some of the land owners have prayed for enhancement of the compensation and Power grid Corporation has prayed for reducing the same awarded by the District Judge.

6. All these matters are taken together for discussion.

7. When the above CRPs along with other CRPs came up before this Court in previous occasions at that time on behalf of Power grid Corporation of India Ltd, the learned counsel, argued that he is restricting his argument only to the extent that the multiplier 8 should be applied and not 10, as virtually applied by the District Judge in calculating and assessing the compensation. He also submitted that in some of the cases, the land owners themselves have not asked for any enhancement at a rate assessed by the District Judge.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the land owners in CRP.Nos.2722 to 2731 of 2005, the petitioners argued that:

(i) Solatium is contemplated under S. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Even though the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, is as silent could be, yet the judicial decisions emerged there under would unambiguously and unequivocally contemplate at the assessment of compensation should be in pari materia with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, wherefore, awarding solatium and interest etc., would automatically follow. But in none of the cases here, solatium was awarded by the authority concerned or the District Judge, and therefore it warrants interference in these C.R.Ps.

(ii) Ultimately, the learned counsel argued further that:

(a) Solatium should be awarded on the amount assessed by the District Judge.

(b) The multiplier virtually, 10 adopted by the District Judge is not at all on the higher side, because after cuttin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document