C.A Vinod vs Power Grid Corporation Of India

Kerala High Court

C.A Vinod vs Power Grid Corporation Of India on 21 May, 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 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                        CRP NO. 396 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.15 OF 2014 OF VI
                ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

             C.A VINOD
             AGED 48 YEARS
             S/O.AYYAPPANKUTTY, CHEMMANDAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
             NANDIPURAM VILLAGE, NANDIPURAM P.O., MUKUNDAPURAL
             TALUK - 680 312.
             BY ADV P.T.JOSE


RESPONDENT/S:

     1       POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA
             CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
             KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682 020 NOW IN PAO/400, 220KV
             SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKARA, KOCHI - 682
             33 REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.
     2       THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
             POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,THRIKKAKARA
             VILLAE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KAKKANAD P.O. - 682 030.

OTHER PRESENT:

             K.P.HARISH SR.GP,PRAVEEN K.JOY R1


         THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING     BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON   19.02.2024,      ALONG   WITH   CRP.105/2023,   THE   COURT   ON
21.05.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023

                                 -2-




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
    TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                        CRP NO. 105 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.15 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 REPRESENTED
           BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER., PIN - 683565
           BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI


RESPONDENT/S:

     1     C.A VINOD
           AGED 48 YEARS
           S/O AYYAPPANKUTTY, CHEMMANDAPARAMBILHOUSE,NANDIPURAM
           VILLAGE, NANDIPURAM P.O,MUNKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
           ERNAKULAM, PIN - 627891
     2     THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
           POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CHEVARAMBALAM,
           KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017
           BY ADV P.T.JOSE


THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING       BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.02.2024,     ALONG WITH CRP.396/2021, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023

                                 -3-



                              ORDER

Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024 These revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P.(Electricity) No.15 of 2014. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.396 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 31 cents in Sy.No.1362/04 of Nandipuram Village in Mukundapuram Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023 -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.1,49,509/- 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 CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023 -5- document as well as Exts.C6 and C6(a) commission report and sketch. The Advocate Commissioner reported that the claimant's property is situated on the eastern side of the Nandipuram Village and the Kodakara Vellarapilly road, which is a bus route, a UP School and a temple are situated at a distance of 1.5 Km from the property. It is also reported that the Kodakara Government Hospital is situated at a distance of 3 Km and Government School is at a distance of 2 Km from the petition schedule property. Similarly, a Church is situated at a distance of 750 metres and two temples within half a kilometre. Moreover, Kurumaly river is on the southern side of the property. Based on the said factors, the court below fixed the land value of the claimant's property at Rs.2,02,571/- per cent, by deducting 10% of land value shown in Ext.A5 document. Relying on Ext.C6(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor was held to be 1.85 cents and that of the outer corridor, 8.425 cents. For the CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023 -6- 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.4,37,350/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.396 of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.105 of 2023 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 eastern side of the Nandipuram Village and the Kodakara Vellarapilly CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023 -7- road, which is a bus route, a UP School and a temple are situated at a distance of 1.5 Km from the property. It is also submitted that the Kodakara Government Hospital is situated at a distance of 3 Km and Government School is at a distance of 2 Km from the petition schedule property. Similarly, a Church is situated at a distance of 750 metres and two temples within half a kilometre. Moreover, Kurumaly river is on the southern side of the property. Without considering these crucial factors, 10% deduction was made from the land value of the property involved in Ext.A5 document.

5. It is further submitted that the court below grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land value as compensation for the central corridor and 20% of the outer corridor. According to the learned Counsel, 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 CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023 -8- claimed.

6. Learned Counsel for the Corporation contended that the compensation granted towards diminution in land value 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 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 reveals that the claim for enhancement of compensation towards the value of trees cut was rightly rejected in the absence of any supporting material, other than the findings in the Advocate Commissioner's report. As found by the court below, apart from the interested testimony of a witness, the claimant in some of the connected CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023 -9- cases, no other independent witness was examined. The court below also took note of the fact that the trees had been cut and removed in the year 2011, whereas the Commissioner inspected the property in the year 2015. Therefore, the court below rightly refused to accept the assessment made by the Commissioner, which was based on an overview of the remaining trees in the petition schedule and nearby properties. Hence, it was rightly held by the court below that the evidence let in by the claimant is not sufficient to discard the contemporaneous valuation statement prepared by the Corporation.

8. For fixing the compensation payable towards diminution in land value, 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 CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023 -10- 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, in the case at hand, the compensation was fixed 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.2,02,571/- per cent, viz; 10% less than the value shown in Ext.A5 document, which according CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023 -11- to me, is reasonable. Similarly, the discretion was properly exercised by the court below 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 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 CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023 -12- 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 shall forthwith be released to the claimant on his filing appropriate application.

sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/