Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member Services -- Sign up today and get free trial for one month.
Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs P.D.Davis 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. 384 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.902 OF 2013 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 P.D.DAVIS
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.DEVASSY, RESIDING AT PAYAMPILLY HOUSE,
PARAPPURAM P.O, KUNJOOR, ALUVA TALUK, MANJAPRA,
KERALA 683 581
2 THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA)
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE 673 017
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
OTHER PRESENT:
B.PRAMOD SC KSEB,PRAVEEN K JOY-R1
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.7/2022, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 of 2022
-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. 7 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.902 OF
2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
P.D. DAVIS
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. DEVASSY, PAYYAMPILLI HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT
PARAPURAM P. O., KANJOOR, ALUVA TALUK, MANJAPRA P.
O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 581.
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682030, NOW IN PAO/400, 220KV
SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P. O., PALLIKKARA, COCHIN -
682030, REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKKODE - 673 017, NOW IN THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE,
KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KAKKANAD P. O. - 682030.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.384/2021, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 of 2022
-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.902 of 2013. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.7 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 55 cents comprised in Sy.No.181 of Ayyampuzha Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the claimant, to facilitate drawing of the lines and CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 of 2022 -4- 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.2,97,278/- 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 document as well as Exts.C5 and C5(a) commission report and sketch. The Advocate Commissioner CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 of 2022 -5- reported that the claimant's property is situated at a distance of 200 metres from the Panchayat road and the Manjapra - Chully road lies at a distance of 1.6 Km. It is also reported that the Government LP School, Primary Health Centre, GK Granite and Fathima Matha Church are situated within a radius of 2 Km. The court below also took note of the fact that while the property in Ext.A7 document is having public road access on two sides, the petition schedule property has no road access on either side. Based on these factors, the court below fixed the land value of the claimant's property at Rs.2,02,571/- per cent, by deducting 10% of the land value of the property involved in Ext.A7 document. Relying on Ext.C5(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor was held to be 11.710 cents and that of the outer corridors, 10.325 (10.250 + 0.075) cents. Taking into account the fact that the remaining property admeasuring 4 cents is also affected due to the drawing of electric lines, the court below CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 of 2022 -6- has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on that account. For the central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for outer corridors, 20% of the land value. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.14,67,150/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.7 of 2022, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.384 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 CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 of 2022 -7- 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. It is submitted that the claimant's property is situated at a distance of 200 metres from the Panchayat road and the Manjapra-Chully road lies at a distance of 1.6 Km. Similarly, the Government LP School, Primary Health Centre, GK Granite and Fathima Matha Church are situated within a radius of 2 Km from the property. Without considering these crucial factors, 10% deduction was made from the land value of the property involved in Ext.A7 document.
5. It is submitted that the court below grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land value for the central corridor and 20% for outer corridors. It is further submitted that the court below is not justified in granting only CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 of 2022 -8- Rs.1,00,000/-, for the remaining property. 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 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.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 corridors are exorbitant. According to the learned Counsel, the court below grossly erred in granting Rs.1,00,000/- towards the remaining property, which is in no way affected.
CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 of 2022 -9-
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 one of the connected cases, no other independent witness was 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. For fixing the compensation payable towards diminution in land value, the factors to be taken into consideration, as laid down in CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 of 2022 -10- 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."
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 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 CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 of 2022 -11- involved in Ext.A7, the court below fixed the land value at Rs.2,02,571/- per cent, viz; 10% less than the value shown in Ext.A7 document, which according 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 corridors. The court below has granted Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the remaining property affected due to the drawing of electric lines, which also I find to be just and proper.
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. CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 of 2022 -12- 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 shall forthwith be released to the claimant on his filing appropriate application.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/