IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 30 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1946 C.R.P. NO.833 OF 2018 (AGAINST THE ORDER IN O.P.(ELE.) NO.127 OF 2012 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR)

PETITIONER/1^ST RESPONDENT:

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., B-9, QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, KATWARIASARAI, NEW DELHI, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, 400 KV SUBSTATION, VELLANIKKARA(P.O.), MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

BY ADV ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT-2:

1 MEENA, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. JOJO JOSEPH, MANGALY HOUSE, MANJAPRA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM.

2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 017.

BY ADVS. P.T.JOSE K.P.JOHNSON JAMES V.P.

OTHER PRESENT:

GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. T. JAYAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

10.10.2018, THE COURT ON 30.10.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER (Dated: 30^th October, 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. Despite the 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. 1st respondent claimed Rs.29 Lakhs 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. For some other trees, the Court assessed fixed compensation.

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 Court below fixed the value of property at Rs.20,000/-. A total 62.71 cents of property was injuriously affected, so the value of land injuriously affected will be Rs.12,54,200/- (62.71 x 20,000). The percentage of diminution of land value is taken as 50%, thus the compensation for the diminution of land value after deducting 50% is fixed as Rs.6,27,100/-.

7. The lower court awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,41,572/-. The 1^st respondent has already received an amount of Rs.69,932/- towards compensation. Therefore, the balance compensation payable is Rs.6,71,640/- rounded to Rs.6,71,700/- with interest at the rate of 8 % from the date of cutting of trees till the da