District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala 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