BABU, AGED 48, S/O. SADASIVAN, BABU SADANAM, URUKUNNU P.O., THENMALA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA TALUK Vs. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, VILAGOM PURAYIDOM, DOCTORS LANE, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, PIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.P.(C).No.1929/2016 was filed against the order in IA.No.849/2016 in OP(Ele.) No.252/2012, OP(C).No.2080/2016 was filed against the order in I.A.No.870/2016 in OP(Ele.) No.157/2013, OP(C).No.2081/2016 was filed against the order in IA.No.875/2016 in OP(Ele.)No.159/2013, OP(C).No.2085/2016 was filed against the order in IA.No.843/2016 in OP(Ele.) No.124/2012, OP(C).No.2086/2016 was filed against the order in IA.No.871/2016 in OP(Ele.)No.215/2013, OP(C).No.2087/2016 was filed against the order in IA.No.844/2016 in OP(Ele.).No.128/2012, OP(C).No.2088/2016 was filed against the order in IA.No.837/2016 in OP(Ele.)No.126/2012, OP(C).No.2089/2016 was filed against the order in IA.No.869/2016 in OP(Ele.)No.155/2013, OP(C). No.2092/2016 was filed against the order in IA.No.838/2016 in OP (Ele.)No.486/2011, OP(C).No.2093/2016 was filed against the order in IA.No.872/2016 in OP(Ele.)No.265/2013, OP(C). No.2094/2016 was filed against the order in IA.No.850/2016 in OP (Ele.)No.27/2012, OP(C).No.2097/2016 was filed against the order in IA.No.841/2016 in OP(Ele.)No.118/2012 and OP(C). No.2344/2016 was filed against the order in IA.No.936/2016 in OP (Ele.) No.516/2011, all on the file of the First Additional District Court, Kollam under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Except the last case, OP(C).No.2344/2016, in all other cases the applications filed by the different petitioners in the respective cases were disposed of by the court below by a common order, while the application in the last case was disposed of by the same Judge by a separate order, but more or less on the same reasonings.

(2.) The petitioners in all these cases have filed the respective petitions for enhanced compensation for the trees cut from their properties and also for diminishing land value caused on account of the drawing of 400 KV electric transmission line from Thenkasi to Edamon. The respondent Corporation have conducted survey for the purpose of drawing the above line through the properties of the petitioners and others and earmarked the trees to be cut for that purpose on the basis of the survey conducted for the alignment of the line to be drawn including the erection of towers. For that purpose, the Deputy Tahasildar was deputed and mahazers have been prepared by the officials in respect of affected properties of each petitioners showing number of trees, its height and width and probable yield from those trees and copies of the mahazers were supplied to the land owners namely the petitioners and after conducting enquiry, they have passed awards fixing the compensation payable for the trees cut on various dates and the amounts were disbursed to the petitioners on different dates. The trees were cut and removed and thereafter the line was drawn thorough the properties. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the authorities, the respective applications have been filed for enhancement of compensation under section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act 12 of 1975 read with section 51 of Indian Electricity Act, Act 9 of 1910 claiming various enhanced amount. They have also unanimously contended in these petitions that the mahazers were not properly prepared by the officials. They have also contended that copies of mahazer were not served on them at the time when it was prepared. They were prepared from their office and their signature were obtained when they went to receive the compensation amount. The actual yield from the trees were not calculated by them. The diminishing land value caused on account of drawing of the line has not been taken into consideration. Further, on account of drawing of the line, the market value of the property has been decreased, thereby they will not fetch the amount which they were expected to fetch before drawing of the line for their properties. They have further contended that on account of the drawing of the line, it is difficult for them to cultivate the land and also it will not be possible for put in proper use in a profitable manner and the properties are situated in a highly commercially potential area with higher market value and on account of the drawing of the line, the same has been diminished. They also contended that on account of the drawing of the line, living in the houses situated in some of the properties is difficult and claimed enhanced compensation at various rates depending upon the number of trees cut and extent of land affected on account of the drawing of the line.

(3.) In all these cases, the respondent Corporation filed a detailed counter statement contending that the allegations mentioned in the petitions are not correct and the authorities have properly assessed the number of trees, its yield etc and proper compensation has been awarded. They also contended that on account of the drawing of the line, no diminishing land value has been caused. They can use the land as before and no decrease in income will be caused on account of the drawing of the line. They can profitably use the land under the line and thereby the petitioners are not entitled to get the enhanced compensation and they prayed for dismissal of the application.