IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 959 of 2006()
1. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.V.THOMAS, S/O.GEEVARGHESE,
... Respondent
2. ALEYAMMA MATHEW, W/O.T.V. MATHEW,
3. K.M.VARGHESE, S/O.T.V.MATHEW,
4. JACOB MATHEW,
5. CHERIAN MATHEW,
6. OOMMAN MATHEW, -DO-, -DO-.
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :11/04/2008
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
............................................................................
C.R.P. Nos. 959 OF 2006, 254, 368, 427, 460,
471, 491, 500, 618 AND 683 OF 2007
............................................................................
Dated this the 11th April, 2008
O R D E R
These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the orders passed by the Addl. District
Judge, Alappuzha disposing of several Original Petitions filed by the owners of land
claiming additional compensation on account of the trees cut for drawing Kayamkulam-
Pallam 220 K.V. Electric line and Kayamkulam-Edamon 220 K.V. Electric Line. Except
C.R.P.No.500 of 2007, all other Revisions are filed by the Power Grid Corporation of
India Ltd. C.R.P.No.500 of 2007 is filed by the claimant . The respective claimants
claimed additional compensation for the trees cut and also claimed
compensation/additional compensation on account of diminution of land value.
2. The court below followed the decision in Kumba Amma vs. K.S.E.B. [2000
(1) K.L.T. 542 (FB) ] where annuity factor was taken as 5%. Compensation was fixed
on the basis of the principles laid down in Kumba Amma’s case on account of the
trees cut.
3. On account of diminution of land value, the court below awarded
compensation on the basis of insufficient data. In some cases, commission was not
taken out, while in some others, Commissioners were appointed. The exact affected
area was not clear in some cases. Different rates were adopted in different cases as
market value of the land. A uniform method was not adopted in all cases while fixing
C.R.P. Nos. 959 OF 2006, 254, 368, 427, 460, 471, 491, 500,
618 AND 683 OF 2007
2
the land value. This was because in some cases, the parties took out commission,
while in others they did not. Documents were produced only in some cases. The Power
Grid Corporation also did not produce necessary documents and materials to prove as
to the exact area affected in each and every case. On the basis of the materials
available before the court, it had to fix the compensation on account of diminution of
land value. Some sort of guess work also became necessary for the court to fix the
compensation. If the relevant materials were placed before the court, the affected area
due to drawal of line could be easily ascertained by the court below and compensation
could be fixed appropriately in each case. There was no uniform method in all cases in
the matter of fixing the land value as well.
4. The Supreme Court held in K.S.E.B. vs. Livisha [ (2007 (3) K.L.T. 1 (SC)]
“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 track 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.
11. So far as the compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees are
concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case.
5. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Livisha’s case and in the
nature of the evidence and data made available before the court, I am of the view that
C.R.P. Nos. 959 OF 2006, 254, 368, 427, 460, 471, 491, 500,
618 AND 683 OF 2007
3
the matter requires to be remanded to the court below for fresh disposal in the light of
the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Livisha’s case. It is also apposite to
note here that C.R.P.Nos. 660 of 2004 and connected cases, arising from similar
Original Petitions, which were disposed of by the Addl. District Court, Alappuzha, were
allowed and remanded for fresh consideration.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the
cases are remanded to the court below for fresh disposal in the light of the principles
laid down by the Supreme Court in Livisha’s case and other binding precedents and
also on the basis of the evidence. The parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence
and to produce such other documents as are relevant. It is made clear that on a re-
consideration if the court finds that the amount to be awarded as compensation is
higher than the amount already awarded , nothing prevents the court from awarding the
amount and the relief need not be denied to the claimants only on the ground that they
have not filed Civil Revision Petitions challenging the award now passed. This
observation is being made since the cases are being remanded mainly at the instance
of the Power Grid Corporation Ltd., who failed to produce the relevant materials
before the court. No order as to costs.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk