Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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