Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India vs P.T.Davis on 5 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 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
CRP NO. 315 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.356 OF 2013 OF I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA,
SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER (COCHIN), CONSTRUCTION AREA
OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682
030.
BY ADV ANJANA KANNATH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 P.T.DAVIS,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.P.P.THOMAS, PALATTY HOUSE, MAJAPRA VILLAGE,
ANGAMALY-683 581.
2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE-17.
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.V.TEKCHAND;SC FOR KSEB A.ARUNKUMAR;SC FOR
POWERGRID MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.335/2021, THE COURT ON 05.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.315 & 335/2021
-2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
CRP NO. 335 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.356 OF 2013 OF VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
P.T.DAVIS
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.P.P.THOMAS, PALATTY HOUSE, MANJAPRA P.O.,
ANGAMALY - 683 581.
BY ADVS.
P.T.JOSE
S.ASHITHA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, KAKKANAD, NOW IN PAO/400,
220KV SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKKARA,
KOCHI - 682 303 REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE, NOW IN KAKKANAD P.O. - 682 030.
3 ADDL.R3 - STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI
- 68230.
4 ADDL.R4 - KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSHB
LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV ANJANA KANNATH
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.315/2021, THE COURT ON 05.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.315 & 335/2021
-3-
ORDER
Dated this the 05th 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.356 of 2013. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.335 of 2021 (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 1 Acre 12 cents comprised in Sy.Nos.596/6 and 596/7 in Block No.20 of Manjapra Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and CRP Nos.315 & 335/2021 -4- non-yielding trees. 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.1,83,178/- 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.A13 CRP Nos.315 & 335/2021 -5- document as well as Exts.C3 and C3(a) commission report and plan. The Advocate Commissioner reported that the Patricks Academy, Primary Health Centre, Government Homeo Dispensary, Government Hospital, Government High School and Jyothis Central School etc are situated within close proximity to the claimant's property. The court took note of the fact that while the property in Ext.A13 document is having public roads on the northern side, the petition schedule property has no direct public road access. Based on these factors, the court below fixed the land value of the claimant's property by deducting 10% of the land value shown in Ext.A13 document. The court below also took note of the fact that no electric line has been drawn across the petition schedule property. Relying on Ext.C3(a) plan, the extent of outer corridor, which passes through the extreme western side of the claimant's property, was held to be 8.846 cents. The court also noted that the remaining portion of land was CRP Nos.315 & 335/2021 -6- not affected since the only outer corridor passes through the extreme western side of the petition schedule property. For the outer corridor, 20% of the land value was granted as compensation. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.3,58,386/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.335 of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.315 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. It is submitted that the Patricks Academy, Primary Health Centre, Government Homeo CRP Nos.315 & 335/2021 -7- Dispensary, Government Hospital, Government High School and Jyothis Central School etc are situated within close proximity to the claimant's property. Without considering these crucial factors, 10% deduction was made from the value of the property involved in Ext.A13 document.
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. The court below also erred in relying on Ext.A13 for fixing the land value of the claimant's property. As there is no electric line drawn across the petition schedule property, 20% of the land value CRP Nos.315 & 335/2021 -8- granted for the outer corridor as compensation 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. The court below also took note of the fact that even the Commissioner could not see any trees or stump of the trees at the time of inspection. Therefore, the court below rightly 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 [(2007) 6 SCC 792] are as under;
"10. The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage CRP Nos.315 & 335/2021 -9- 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 in fixing the land value as well as the percentage of diminution. The court below has deducted only 10% of the land value shown in Ext.A13, which according to me, is reasonable. The discretion was properly exercised in granting 20% of the CRP Nos.315 & 335/2021 -10- land value as compensation for the outer corridor.
9. Having held as above, I find a patent mistake in the order, which is liable to be corrected in exercise of this Court's revisional jurisdiction. It is seen that initially the Corporation had paid Rs.1,83,178/- towards the value of trees cut alone and had refused to pay any amount towards diminution in land value. As per the impugned order, the court below rejected the claim for enhancement of compensation towards value of trees cut and awarded compensation towards diminution in land value. Even though the court below did not grant compensation for the value of trees cut, the impugned order contains a direction to deduct the compensation already paid from the enhanced compensation awarded. This may be interpreted as a direction to deduct the compensation initially paid towards value of trees from the compensation towards diminution in land value granted by the court below. The CRP Nos.315 & 335/2021 -11- impugned order, to that extent, need to be corrected.
For the aforementioned reasons, the civil revision petition filed by the claimant is allowed in part. The direction in the impugned order, to deduct the compensation already paid from the enhanced compensation is deleted. The enhanced compensation awarded by the court below shall be paid within three months, without any deduction. 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.
The civil revision petition filed by the Corporation is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/