Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India vs P.M Yacob (Baby) on 23 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
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946
CRP NO. 258 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.586 OF
2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682 030, PRESENTLY AT
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, 400/220, KV SUB STATION,
KUMARAPURAM P.O, PALLIKKARA, ERNAKULAM , REPRESENTED
BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER, PIN - 683565
BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 P.M YACOB (BABY)
AGED 78 YEARS
S/O. MATHAI, PLACHERI HOUSE, THABOR P.O, MUKKANNUR ,
ALUVA, PIN - 683577
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRASENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR , ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682031
4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - KSEB
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR KSEB
LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
P.T.JOSE
S.ASHITHA(K/000357/2018)
ALTHAF P.A.(K/000535/2022)
ABEY AUGUSTINE(K/000923/2022)
OTHER PRESENT:
GP B.S.SYAMANTHAK; SC FOR KSEB A.ARUNKUMAR
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2024, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP No.258 of 2022
-2-
ORDER
Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2024 The revision petitioner, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd ('the Corporation' for short), is aggrieved by the enhanced compensation ordered to be paid to the first respondent towards diminution in land value, consequent upon the drawing of 400 KV electric lines across his property by the Corporation. The essential facts are as under;
The first respondent is in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 13.34 Ares in Sy.No.613/B of Mukkannur Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the first respondent, 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 CRP No.258 of 2022 -3- 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 first respondent, only Rs.24,148/- 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.A5 document as well as Exts.C10 and C10(a) commission report and sketch. The Advocate Commissioner reported that the first respondent's property is situated in close proximity to the Poothamkutty Service Co-operative Bank. Moreover, CRP No.258 of 2022 -4- Palissery Government Hospital and Government Higher Secondary School are also situated at a distance of 2.5 Km from the petition schedule property. The court below also took note of the fact that the petition schedule property is situated at a distance of 500 metres from Poothamkuty-Angamaly road, which is a bus route and a road passes through the southern side of the property. Based on these factors, the court below fixed the land value of the first respondent's property at Rs.1,80,063/- per cent, which is equivalent to 20% less than the land value shown in Ext.A5 document. Relying on Ext.C10(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor was held to be 1.408 cents and that of the outer corridor, 6.276 cents. For the central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for the outer corridor, 20% of the land value. Accordingly, the first respondent was found entitled to compensation of Rs.3,27,426/-.
3. Heard Adv.Millu Dandapani for the CRP No.258 of 2022 -5- Corporation and Adv.P.T.Jose for the first respondent.
4. 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.A5 for fixing the land value of the first respondent's property. As the drawing of electric lines does not prohibit the land owner from conducting agricultural activities and putting up small structures, 40% of the land value granted for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridor are exorbitant. Per contra, learned Counsel for the first respondent argued that the enhancement was granted after considering all relevant factors.
5. A careful scrutiny of the impugned order reveals that the claim for enhancement of compensation towards the value of trees cut was rightly rejected since no supporting material, CRP No.258 of 2022 -6- 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 solitary witness, who is the claimant in some of the connected cases, no other independent witnesses were examined to prove the claim. It is also not in dispute that the trees were cut in the year 2011 and the commissioner inspected the property in the year 2015 and assessed the value of trees based on an overview of the trees standing in the nearby properties. Such assessment, having no scientific basis, is not sufficient to discard the contemporaneous valuation statement prepared by the Corporation.
6. As far as the diminution in land value is concerned, the factors to be taken into consideration, as laid down in KSEB v. Livisha [(2007) 6 SCC 792] are as under;
"10. The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage CRP No.258 of 2022 -7- 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 cultivation therein, 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. Based on the above factors and a comparison of the petition schedule property with the property involved in Ext.A5, the court below has deducted 20% of the land value of the CRP No.258 of 2022 -8- property in Ext.A5 document, which according to me, is reasonable. Similarly, discretion was properly exercised by the court below in granting 40% of the land value as compensation for central corridor and 20% for the outer corridor.
7. The contention of the Corporation that the Government having fixed the fair 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 CRP No.258 of 2022 -9- Civil Procedure.
For the aforementioned reasons, the civil revision petition filed by the Corporation is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/