Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

40% Compensation for Central Corridor Just and Proper: Kerala High Court Upholds Enhanced Compensation for Land Affected by Power Lines

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

In a significant judgment, the High Court of Kerala, presided over by Justice V.G. Arun, upheld the decision of the VI Additional District Court, Ernakulam, regarding enhanced compensation for the diminution in land value caused by the installation of 400 KV lines by the Power Grid Corporation of India across a landowner’s property. The court dismissed the revision petition by the Corporation challenging the order of enhanced compensation.

 

 

Legal Point of the Judgment:

 

 

The pivotal legal issue addressed in the judgment was the adequacy of compensation awarded for the diminution in land value due to the installation of high tension power lines. The court scrutinized the compensation awarded for the central and outer corridors of the land affected by the power lines and the remaining property. The judgment focused on the right of a landowner to seek enhanced compensation when their property’s value is diminished due to such installations.

 

 

Facts and Issues:

 

 

The petitioner, Power Grid Corporation of India, challenged the order granting enhanced compensation to the claimant, whose land was affected by the installation of 400 KV lines. The claimant, owning 23.09 Ares of land in Manjapra Village, Aluva Taluk, sought additional compensation over the Rs.1,80,790 initially awarded for the value of trees cut, claiming a significant diminution in the land value due to the power lines.

 

 

Detailed Court Assessment:

 

 

Compensation Justification: The court acknowledged the claimant’s right to enhanced compensation for the land’s diminished value, particularly considering the extent of the property affected and the nature of the damage caused by the power lines.

 

 

Land Value Calculation: The court analyzed various factors such as the nature of the land, its cultivation status, commercial importance, and the effect of the power lines. It considered a 40% value for the central corridor, 20% for the outer corridors, and 5% for the remaining property, deeming these percentages just and proper.

 

 

Corporation’s Objections: The Power Grid Corporation’s argument against the exorbitant compensation was dismissed by the court. It upheld the enhanced compensation as reasonable, noting that the installation of power lines did not prohibit agricultural activities or construction of small structures but still significantly affected the land’s utility and value.

 

 

Decision: The High Court directed the immediate release of the deposited amount to the claimant without any deduction, specifying that the enhanced compensation shall be paid within three months. The court corrected the initial order’s misinterpretation regarding the deduction of initially paid compensation from the enhanced amount.

 

 

 Date of Decision: 5th April 2024

 

 

Power Grid Corporation of India vs. P.T. Francis & Ors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Kerl-05-April-24-Power-Grid-Civil1.pdf"]

 

Latest Legal News