Trial Courts Must Award Just Compensation In POCSO Cases Beyond Fine Amounts; Interim Payment No Reason To Deny Final Relief: Madras High Court Section 482 CrPC Power Not For Conducting 'Mini-Trial'; Disputed Facts Must Be Adjudicated At Trial: Allahabad High Court Right To Walk On Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right; Municipal Authorities Under Enforceable Duty To Provide Pedestrian Infrastructure: Supreme Court Right To Walk Is A Fundamental Right Under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21; Priority Over Motorised Vehicles: Supreme Court Municipal Commissioner Is Disciplinary Authority For All Employees Post-1993 Amendment; Existing Regulations Can't Fetter Statutory Power: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Force Plaintiff To Accept Monetary Compensation Instead Of Removal Of Encroachment Without Prayer: Supreme Court Recruitment Merit Is Not A Vested Right; Public Interest Justifies Disclosing Marks Of Candidates Outside Selection Zone: Supreme Court Special Police Establishment Not An 'Intelligence & Security Organisation', State Cannot Exempt It From RTI Act: Supreme Court Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court Long Service Cannot Be Denied Regularization On Mere Technicalities If Appointment Wasn't Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Nomination Paper Can Only Be Challenged Through Election Petition; Article 329(b) Bars Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court NI Act | Benefit Of Presumptions Under Sections 118 & 139 Not Available If Complainant Lacks Direct Knowledge Of Transaction: Kerala High Court Landowners Entitled To Solatium Under National Highways Act; Failure To Grant Is Ground To Challenge Award Under Section 34: MP High Court Transfer Policy Only Broad Guideline, Not Enforceable Under Article 226/227 In Absence Of Mala Fides: Rajasthan High Court

Court is Not Bound by Government Guidelines in Assessing Damage and Fixing Compensation: Kerala High Court Upholds Enhanced Compensation for Land Devaluation Under High Voltage Lines

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court dismissed the civil revision petitions filed against the enhanced compensation for land devaluation due to the installation of 400 KV electric lines by Power Grid Corporation of India. Justice V.G. Arun, presiding over the case, emphasized that the court is not restricted by government-set guidelines when assessing damages and determining fair compensation.

The case arose from disputes concerning compensation for land value diminution and tree loss due to high voltage electric lines installed by Power Grid Corporation across the property of M.P. Balakrishnan, the revision petitioner. The petitioner challenged the initial compensation awarded, claiming it was insufficient given the significant impact on the land’s utility and value.

Compensation for Trees: The court agreed with the lower court’s decision, rejecting the claim for enhanced compensation for tree loss due to a lack of sufficient evidence to support the claimant’s assertions.

Land Devaluation Compensation: On the more contested issue of land value diminution, the court noted the lower court’s meticulous consideration of various factors such as the property’s location, proximity to infrastructure, and the extent to which the high voltage lines affected the land. The lower court had judiciously assessed the compensation, basing it on a comparative analysis with similar properties impacted by such infrastructure.

Judicial Discretion on Compensation: Justice Arun reiterated that the judiciary has the discretion to adjust compensation based on the actual damage and characteristics of the land. He pointed out that, “while assessing the damage sustained and fixing the compensation, the court is not bound by the guidelines/orders issued by the Government.”

Interest on Compensation: The court upheld the decision to award 9% interest on the compensation, aligning with legal precedents that support such interest provisions as just and equitable in cases of delayed compensation payments.

Decision: The High Court confirmed the lower court’s enhanced compensation figures, dismissing both the petitioner’s and the corporation’s revision petitions. The court ordered the adjusted compensation amount to be paid within three months, reinforcing the right to fair compensation for landowners affected by public utility projects.

Date of Decision: April 25, 2024

M.P. Balakrishnan vs. Power Grid Corporation of India et al.

Latest Legal News