Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs Jacob on 12 April, 2024
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
CRP NO. 386 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.682 OF 2014 OF VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682 030, PRESENTLY AT CONSTRUCTION
AREA OFFICE, 400/220 KV SUB STATION, KUMARAPURAM
P.O., PALLIKKARA, ERNAKULAM-683 565, REP.BY ITS
SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER
BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 JACOB
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.POULO, RESIDING AT MADAN HOUSE, MANJAPRA
VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KERALA 683 581
2 THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA)
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE 673 017
3 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 030
4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REP.BY IT'S CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB
LTD, VYDYUDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM (P.O.),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
BY ADVS.
P.T.JOSE
R.HARISHANKAR
OTHER PRESENT:
SC FOR KSEB A. ARUNKUMAR;GP B.S.SYAMANTHAK
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.20/2022, THE COURT ON 12.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.386/21 & 20/22
-2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
CRP NO. 20 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.682 OF
2014 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
JACOB
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O.POULO, MADAN HOUSE, MANJAPRA, ANGAMALY - 683
581.
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682 030. NOW IN PAO/400, 220KV
SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O.,PALLIKKARA, COCHI - 682
030, REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.)
POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA
LTD.,CHEVARAMBALAM,KOZHIKKODE - 673 017, NOW IN
THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KAKKANAD
P.O. - 682 030.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI
- 682 030.
4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB
LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.386/21, THE COURT ON 12.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.386/21 & 20/22
-3-
ORDER
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024 These revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P.(Electricity) No.682 of 2014. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.20 of 2022 (hereinafter called 'the claimant'), being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded towards the damage and loss sustained due to the drawing of 400 KV lines across his property by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd (hereinafter called 'the Corporation'). The essential facts are as under;
The claimant is in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 12.55 Ares comprised in Sy.No.289/6 of Manjapra Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. CRP Nos.386/21 & 20/22 -4- According to the claimant, to facilitate drawing of the lines and smooth transmission of power, large number of trees were cut from his property. The drawing of high tension lines rendered the land underneath and adjacent to the lines useless, resulting in diminution of the value of the property. In spite of the huge loss suffered by the claimant, only an amount of Rs.1,93,603/- was paid as compensation towards the value of yielding and non-yielding trees cut. Surprisingly, no compensation was granted for diminution in land value. Hence, the original petition was filed, seeking enhanced compensation towards the value of trees cut and diminution in land value.
2. The court below rejected the claim for enhanced compensation for the value of trees cut since no evidence in support of the claim was produced. As far as the claim for enhanced compensation towards diminution in land value is concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A7 CRP Nos.386/21 & 20/22 -5- document as well as Exts.C7 and C7(a) commission report and sketch. The Advocate Commissioner reported that the claimant's property is situated at a distance of 250 metres from Manjapra-Chully Road, which is a bus route and also abuts the Idamalayar Canal Road and Panchayat Anganavadi Road. Moreover, St. Sebastian Church, Homoeo Clinic and LP School are situated within close proximity to the petition schedule property. Based on these factors, the court below adopted the land value shown in Ext.A7 document. Relying on Ext.C7(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor was held to be 12.230 cents and that of the outer corridor, 15.440 cents. For the central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for outer corridor, 20% of the land value. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.17,96,121/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.20 of 2022, whereas the CRP Nos.386/21 & 20/22 -6- Corporation has filed CRP No.386 of 2021 contending that the enhancement ordered is far in excess of the actual damage sustained.
3. Heard Adv.P.T.Jose for the claimant and Adv.Millu Dandapani for the Corporation.
4. Learned Counsel for the claimant contended that the court below committed gross illegality in refusing to grant enhanced compensation for the loss sustained due to the cutting of valuable trees, in spite of the Advocate Commissioner assessing and reporting the loss. The findings in the Commissioner's report were not relied on by the court below for the reason that the property was inspected much after the trees were cut. The said reasoning is flawed since the trees were cut much after issuance of notification by the Corporation and the cause of action for filing the original petition arose only on payment of the initial compensation, even later.
5. It is further submitted that the court CRP Nos.386/21 & 20/22 -7- below grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land value for the central corridor and only 20% for outer corridor. Considering the extent of damage sustained and the diminution in land value consequent to the drawing of lines, the court below ought to have granted compensation as claimed.
6. Learned Counsel for the Corporation contended that, compensation towards diminution in land value granted is exorbitant and there is no rationale in granting 9% interest on that amount. The court below also erred in relying on Ext.A7 for fixing the land value of the claimant's property. As the drawing of electric lines does not prohibit the landowner from conducting agricultural activities and putting up small structures, 40% of land value granted for central corridor and 20% for the outer corridor are exorbitant.
7. A careful scrutiny of the impugned order CRP Nos.386/21 & 20/22 -8- reveals that the claim for enhancement of compensation towards the value of trees cut was rightly rejected since no supporting material, other than the findings in the Advocate Commissioner's report, was made available. As found by the court below, apart from the interested testimony of a witness, who is the claimant in one of the connected cases, no other witnesses were examined. The court below also took note of the fact that the Commissioner's assessment was based on the Mahazar, whereas the Corporation has assessed the compensation on the basis of details furnished by the Government departments. It was therefore held that the evidence let in by the claimant was not sufficient to discard the contemporaneous valuation statement prepared by the Corporation.
8. As far as the diminution in land value is concerned, the factors to be taken into consideration, as laid down in KSEB v. Livisha CRP Nos.386/21 & 20/22 -9- [(2007) 6 SCC 792] are as under;
"10. The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small tract of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion would be determinative. The value of the land would also be a relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, in a given situation may lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used."
On careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the compensation was enhanced after taking all the above factors into consideration. The nature of the land, the commercial importance of the area and the manner in which the land was affected by drawing of the lines are all seen considered for fixing the land value as well as the percentage of diminution. The court below has adopted the land value in Ext.A7 document, which CRP Nos.386/21 & 20/22 -10- according to me, is reasonable. The discretion was properly exercised in granting 40% of the land value as compensation for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridor.
9. The contention of the Corporation that the Government having fixed the land value, the court below could not have fixed a higher value is liable to be rejected since, while assessing the damage sustained and fixing the compensation, the court is not bound by the guidelines/orders issued by the Government. The contention that the court below committed an illegality in awarding 9% interest cannot also be sustained in the light of the decision of this Court in V.V. Jayaram v Kerala State Electricity Board [2015 (3) KHC 453]. As such, there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, warranting intervention by this Court in exercise of the revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
CRP Nos.386/21 & 20/22 -11- For the aforementioned reasons, the civil revision petitions filed by the claimant as well as the Corporation are dismissed. The enhanced compensation fixed by the court below shall be paid within three months of receipt of a copy of this order. If any amount is deposited pursuant to the order of this Court or otherwise, the same shall forthwith be released to the claimant on his filing appropriate application.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/