IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 573 of 2008()
1. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NARAYANA PILLAI,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
For Respondent :SRI.P.NARAYANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :10/03/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
C.R.P.NOS.573 & 594 OF 2008 ()
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010
O R D E R
These revisions are filed against the orders passed by the
Additional District Judge, Kottayam awarding enhanced
compensation in O.P.(EA).No.107 of 2000 and O.P.(EA).
No.108 of 2000, both filed under Section 42 of the Indian
Electricity Supply Act and Sub sections 10 and 16 of the
Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 51 of the Indian
Electricity Act.
2. C.R.P.No.573 of 2008 is filed against the order in O.P.
(EA).No.107 of 2000 and C.R.P.No.594 of 2008 against the
order in O.P. (EA).No.108 of 2000.
3. Previously, the enhanced compensation awarded by
the court below in the two original petitions earlier had been
set aside by this Court in revisions remitting the cases for
fresh consideration with some directions. Pursuant to such
CRP.573/08 & 594/08 2
remission, complying with the directions given in the remand
order, the impugned orders have been passed. At the time of
hearing, it is submitted that this Court while remitting the
cases earlier had directed the court below to reassess the
compensation following the guidelines given in Kumba
Amma v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (1) KLT 542 (FB)). So far as the
tree cutting compensation awarded in the present case, there
is no dispute that the assessment had been made strictly in
accordance with the directions given in the remand order. So
much so, that part of the enhanced compensation awarded by
the court below does not arise for scrutiny in these revisions.
4. The only challenge canvassed in these revisions is
that the court below in fixing the compensation towards the
area for putting up towers and also the claim for diminution
of land value canvassed by the claimants has fixed the centage
value and also the percentage of injurious affection on a
higher side without sufficient data. The claims have arisen on
account of loss and damages caused by the drawing of 220 KV
lines through the properties of the claimant. When that be so,
CRP.573/08 & 594/08 3
it has to be taken note that the land underneath the lines and
also that of the clearing area cannot be profitably used by the
land owners as it was done earlier. Such clearing area for 220
KV lines, needless to point out, is essential to avoid any
mishap and to ensure free flow of energy without any
obstruction. Clearance made in the property of the claimants
was for drawing 220 KV electric lines has to be taken note in
examining the challenge against the compensation given for
diminution of land value. In O.P.(EA).No.107 of 2000, the
court has fixed the centage value at Rs.8000/-. On the basis of
the materials produced in the case, the court below awarded a
sum of Rs.32,000/- for the four cents of land taken for putting
up a tower, and towards diminution of land value by the
drawing of lines, the area of which was determined as eight
cents, on the above centage value as above and fixing 20% as
the injury suffered, the court has awarded Rs.12,800/-. I find
that the assessment made by the court is just and reasonable
and no interference is called for.
5. In the other case, O.P.(EA).No.108 of 2000, adopting
CRP.573/08 & 594/08 4
the same centage value and percentage of injury, the court
has awarded a sum of Rs.27,200/- for the affected area of 17
cents, and that can only be considered as just and proper. I
find no interference with the orders passed by the court below
awarding the enhanced compensation as fixed in such orders
is called for. Revisions are dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp