Unregistered Agreement Of Sale Entered Before Attachment Cannot Defeat Decree-Holder’s Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court No Presumption That Joint Family Possesses Joint Property; Female Hindu Absolute Owner Of Property Purchased In Her Name: Allahabad High Court Age Determination Must Strictly Follow Hierarchy Of Documents Under JJ Act: Orissa High Court Acquits Man Of POCSO Charges Once 'C' Form Declarations Are Signed, Burden Shifts To Buyer To Prove Payment Of Outstanding Dues: Madras High Court Section 213 Succession Act No Bar To Eviction Suit If Claim Is Based On Landlord-Tenant Relationship, Not Title Under Will: Bombay High Court Meritorious Candidate Wrongfully Denied Appointment Entitled To Notional Seniority & Old Pension Scheme: J&K & Ladakh High Court 6-Year Delay In Propounding Will & Hostile Attesting Witness Constitute 'Grave Suspicious Circumstances': Delhi High Court Refuses Probate Section 319 CrPC Power Cannot Be Exercised Based On FIR Or Section 161 Statements: Allahabad High Court Quashes Summoning Of Unmarried Sisters Bail Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Recovery Proceedings; Court Can't Order Sale Of Accused's Property: Supreme Court Able-Bodied Husband Cannot Defeat Maintenance Claim By Projecting Income Below Minimum Wages: Delhi High Court Recording Section 313 CrPC Statement Before Cross-Examination Of Prosecution Witness Does Not Vitiate Trial: Karnataka High Court Murder By Unknown Assailants Is Not 'Accidental Death' Under Mukhymantri Kisan Bima Yojna: Allahabad High Court Section 311 CrPC | Court Not A Passive Bystander, Must Summon Material Witness If Essential For Just Decision: Rajasthan High Court GST Act Does Not Prima Facie Prohibit Consolidated Show-Cause Notices For Multiple Years: Bombay HC Refers Issue To Larger Bench 90% Burn Injuries No Bar To Making Statement; Dying Declaration Can Be Sole Basis For Conviction If Found Truthful: Madhya Pradesh High Court

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