Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India vs Velayudhan K K 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. 108 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.17 OF 2014 OF VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
VELAYUDHAN K.K.
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN, KARUKAMPILLI HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM P.O.,
PALISSERRY KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ANGAMALY 683 576.
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682 030, NOW IN PAO/400, 220KV,
SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKARA KOCHI 682
303, REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.)
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CHEVARAMBALM,
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.
OTHER PRESENT:
GP B.S.SYAMANTHAK sc for kaseb a.arunkumar and
b.premod
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.168/2022, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.108 & 168 of 2022
-2-
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. 168 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.17 OF 2014 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 - 683 565,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER, PIN -
683565
BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 VELAYUDHAN K K
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAN , AGED 53 YEARS , KARUKAMPILLI HOUSE
,PADUVAPURAM P,O , PALLISSERY , KARUKUTTY VILLAGE ,
ANGAMALY, PIN - 683576
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE - 673 017, PIN - 673017
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI
- 682 030, PIN - 682030
4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR KSEB
LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, PIN - 695001
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.108/2022, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.108 & 168 of 2022
-3-
ORDER
Dated this the 23rd 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.17 of 2014. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.108 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 24.61 Ares in Sy.No.354/12 of Karukutty Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the CRP Nos.108 & 168 of 2022 -4- 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.84,199/- 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.C9 and C9(a) commission CRP Nos.108 & 168 of 2022 -5- report and sketch. The Advocate Commissioner reported that the claimant's property is situated on the western side of the Karukutty Palissery Road and the Palissery Higher Secondary School, Government Hospital and Karukutty Service Co- operative Bank are situated at a distance of 50 metres from the property. Similarly, St.George Church and Naipunniya Public School are situated at a distance of 400 metres and about 1.5 Km, respectively. Moreover, a chicken centre, a cold drinks shop and a workshop are also reported to be within close proximity to the petition schedule property. Based on the said factors, the court below fixed the land value of the claimant's property at Rs.1,80,063/- per cent, which is equivalent to 20% less than the land value of the property involved in Ext.A5 document. Relying on Ext.C9(a) sketch, the court below found that no electric lines were drawn across the petition schedule property and only the outer corridor admeasuring 2.520 cents passes CRP Nos.108 & 168 of 2022 -6- through the property. For the outer corridor, 20% of the land value was granted as compensation. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.90,751/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.108 of 2022, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.168 of 2022 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. It is submitted that the the claimant's property is situated on the western side of Karukutty Palissery Road and the Palissery Higher Secondary School, Government Hospital and CRP Nos.108 & 168 of 2022 -7- Karukutty Service Co-operative Bank are situated at a distance of 50 metres from the property. Similarly, St.George Church and Naipunniya Public School are situated at a distance of 400 metres and about 1.5 Km, respectively. Moreover, a chicken centre, a cold drinks shop and a workshop are also reported to be within close proximity to the petition schedule property. Without considering these crucial factors, the land value was fixed as Rs.1,80,063/- per cent.
5. It is further submitted that the court below grossly erred in granting only 20% of the land value as compensation for the 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 CRP Nos.108 & 168 of 2022 -8- 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 claimant's property. As no electric lines were drawn across the petition schedule property and there is no prohibition on the landowner from conducting agricultural activities and putting up small structures, 20% of land value granted for the outer corridor is exorbitant.
7. 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, 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 CRP Nos.108 & 168 of 2022 -9- 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.
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 [(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."
CRP Nos.108 & 168 of 2022 -10- 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 fixed the land value at Rs.1,80,063/- per cent, viz, 20% less than the value shown in Ext.A5 document, which according to me, is reasonable. Similarly, discretion was properly exercised by the court below in granting 20% of the land value as compensation for the outer corridor.
9. The contention of the Corporation that the Government having fixed the fair value, the court below could not have fixed a higher value CRP Nos.108 & 168 of 2022 -11- 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.
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 CRP Nos.108 & 168 of 2022 -12- shall forthwith be released to the claimant on his filing appropriate application.
sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/