IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI TUESDAY, THE

5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1946 C.R.P. NO.31 OF 2019 (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2018 IN O.P.(ELE.) NO.260 OF 2013 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR)

REVISION PETITIONERS:

THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, B-9, QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL, KATWARIA, SARAI, NEW DELHI - 110 016.

BY ADV ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA RESPONDENT/S:

1 B.SURESH BABU AGED 58 YEARS S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, NEDUNGOTTU HOUSE, PANDANAD P.O., CHENGANNUR, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 310/6, FACT QUARTERS, AMBALAMEDU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 303.

2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 017.

BY ADVS. P.T.JOSE GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.P.JOHNSON THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

05.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER (Dated: 5^th November, 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 first respondent/ claimant, consequent upon the drawing of 400 KV electric lines across his property by the Corporation.

2. The facts of the case are as follows; In order to facilitate the drawing of lines for the smooth transmission of power, a large number of trees were cut from the 1^st respondent’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 huge loss suffered, a meager amount was paid to the 1^st respondent as compensation. Hence, the original petition was filed, seeking enhanced compensation.

3. Respondent No.1 claimed Rs.34,97,307/- towards the diminution and the utility of the land and the value of the trees cut and removed from the property. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the court below has assessed the loss sustained due to the cutting of yielding trees by assessing the average number of yields per year and multiplying it with the value of one, after deducting the immature falling and expenses. For determining the compensation amount payable, the trial court, relying on the decision reported in KSEB v. Livisha, [(2007) 6 SCC 792] applied 8 as the multiplier. A similar method was adopted for calculating the loss sustained due to the cutting of yielding trees, and for some other trees, compensation was fixed based on the value of trees.

4. Thus, the compensation fixed for different trees is shown in the table mentioned below:

5. In para. 10 of the decision reported in KSEB (Supra) it was held that;

“10. The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small tract of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion would be determinative. The value of the land would also be a relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, in a given situation may lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used.”

6. The claimant Claimed Rs.1,50,000/- per cent for diminution in land value, the court below fixed the value of the property at Rs.1,00,000/-. A total 55.53 cents of property was injuriously affected, so the value of land injuriously affected will be Rs.55,53,000/- (55.53 x 1,00,000). The percentage of diminution of land value is taken as 50%, thus the