Power Grid Corporation Of India … vs Balakrishna Pillai on 15 June, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 654 of 2008()


1. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

                For Respondent  :SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :15/06/2010

 O R D E R
                    THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
            ====================================
                      C.R.P. No.654 of 2008
            ====================================
             Dated this the 15th    day of June, 2010

                             O R D E R

This revision petition arises at the instance of the Power Grid

Corporation of India Ltd., for whose purpose 220 KV line was drawn

along the property of respondent. Learned Additional District

Judge after considering various claim made by the respondent

awarded a sum of Rs.57,550/- with 6% interest as additional

compensation apart from the sum of Rs.76,242/- awarded by the

petitioner. According to the petitioner amount awarded by the

learned District Judge is excessive.

2. I have counsel on both sides.

3. So far as the enhancement given for value of

improvements is concerned it is seen that the learned Additional

District Judge after referring to the material on record including the

documents produced by petitioner and basing on Parks table has

fixed additional compensation at Rs.31,318.46. Though that

enhancement is challenged by the petitioner in the revision

petition on going through the order under challenge I do not find

reason to interfere with that enhancement.

4. Then what remained is the compensation awarded for

diminution in land value. Based on Exts.C1 to C3, report, plan

C.R.P. No.654 of 2008
-: 2 :-

and mahazar prepared by the Advocate Commissioner and the

evidence of respondent as P.W.2 court below has fixed the extent

of land injuriously affected by the drawal of line as 26.213 which I

do not find no reason to interfere. so far as land value is

concerned respondent placed reliance on Ext.B3, copy of

assignment deed as per which 15 cents of land was sold for

Rs.3,00,000/- i.e., at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent. Learned

Additional District Judge was not inclined to accept Ext.B2 as such

but fixed Rs.5,000/- per cent as the land value. That is not at all

exorbitant requiring interference by revisional court. Learned

Additional District Judge adopted 20% of the land value as the

basis for awarding compensation for diminution in land value and

accordingly Rs.26,231/- was awarded as compensation for

diminution in land value which was not awarded to the petitioner.

Drawal of the line resulted in diminution in land value in the

sense that respondent is prevented from putting up structures

and cultivating permanent crops in the affected area.

Considering all these aspects I do not find reason to interfere with

the order under challenge.

Civil Revision Petition fails and it is dismissed.

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

vsv