MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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