Kerala High Court
Joju Peter vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd on 11 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
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
CRP NO. 373 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.624 OF 2013 OF VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
JOJU PETER
AGED 52 YEARS
MONIKKATH HOUSE, CHERANELLUR, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNAD TALUK 683 544
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, KAKKANAD, 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, CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE, NOW NEAR CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN 682 030
3 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 030
4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REP.BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004
BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR
OTHER PRESENT:
SC FOR KSEB A.ARUNKUMAR;GP B.S.SYAMANTHAK
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.182/2022, THE COURT ON 11.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.373/21 & 182/22
-2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
CRP NO. 182 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.624 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 JOJU PETER
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. PATHROSE ,MONIKKATH HOUSE, CHERANELLUR PO,
KOOVAPADI VILLAGE , KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, REPRESENTED BY
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, HIS FATHER PATHROSE.
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683544
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN - 682030
4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - KSEB
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR KSEB LTD.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.373/212022, THE COURT ON 11.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.373/21 & 182/22
-3-
ORDER
Dated this the 11th 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.624 of 2013. The original petition was filed
by the revision petitioner in CRP No.373 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 total extent of 35.60
Ares in Sy.Nos.41/6 and 41/7 of Koovappady
Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land was
cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding
CRP Nos.373/21 & 182/22
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.1,21,216/- 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
CRP Nos.373/21 & 182/22
concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A7
document as well as Exts.C17 and C17(a)
commission report and plan. Relying on Ext.C17(a)
plan, the court below found that a tower was
erected in the claimant's property and the extent
of property covered by the tower was held to be
8.895 cents. Similarly, the extent of central
corridor was held to be 37.41 cents (46.305-
8.895) and that of the outer corridors, 32.367
cents. The court below also took note of the fact
that the remaining property admeasuring 8.895
cents is also affected due to the drawing of
electric lines. For the extent covered by the
tower, 100% of the land value was granted as
compensation. For the central corridor, 40% of
the land value was granted as compensation and
for the outer corridors, 20% of the land value.
Since the entire property was found to be
affected by the drawing of electric lines,
Rs.1,00,000/- was also awarded as compensation to
CRP Nos.373/21 & 182/22
the claimant. Accordingly, the claimant was
found entitled to compensation of Rs.52,54,687/-.
Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the
claimant has filed CRP No.373 of 2021, whereas
the Corporation has filed CRP No.182 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. The findings in the Commissioner's report
were not relied on by the court below for the
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
CRP Nos.373/21 & 182/22
notification by the Corporation and the cause of
action for filing the original petition arose
only on payment of the initial compensation, even
later.
5. It is submitted that the court below
grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land
value for the central corridor and only 20% for
the outer corridors. It is further submitted that
the court below is not justified in granting only
Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation even after finding
the entire property is affected due to the
drawing of electric lines. 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
no rationale in granting 9% interest on that
CRP Nos.373/21 & 182/22
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 the land value granted
for the central corridor and 20% for the outer
corridors are exorbitant. The court below grossly
erred in granting Rs.1,00,000/- for the property,
which is in no way affected.
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 witness, who is the
claimant in some of the connected cases, no other
witnesses were examined. The court below also
CRP Nos.373/21 & 182/22
took note of the fact that the trees were cut and
removed in the year 2011 and the Commissioner
inspected the property after a long period.
Therefore, the court below rightly refused to
accept the assessment made by the Commissioner,
which was based on the trees standing in the
remaining petition schedule property and
neighbouring property. On the other hand, the
court below found the Corporation to have
assessed the yield on the basis of local
inspection, enquiry and data 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. 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.373/21 & 182/22
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. After considering the similarities of
the properties involved, the court below has
adopted the land value in Ext.A7 document, which
according to me, is reasonable. For the land
CRP Nos.373/21 & 182/22
covered by the tower, 100% of the land value is
granted as compensation and the central and outer
corridors are granted 40% and 20% respectively,
which also I find to be just and proper. The
discretion was properly exercised in granting
Rs.1,00,000/-, finding the entire property is
affected due to the drawing of electric lines.
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].
10. Having held as above, I find a patent
CRP Nos.373/21 & 182/22
mistake in the order, which is liable to be
corrected in exercise of this Court's revisional
jurisdiction. After granting 100% of the land
value as compensation towards the tower foot
area, the court has mistakenly directed to deduct
the compensation paid towards the tower foot area
from the enhanced compensation awarded. It is
also clear from the impugned order that, while
computing the compensation for the central
corridor, the area covered by the tower was
deducted. Therefore, the impugned order, to that
extent, needs 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 paid towards
the tower foot area from the enhanced
compensation is deleted. The enhanced
compensation awarded by the court below shall be
paid within three months, without any deduction.
CRP Nos.373/21 & 182/22
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/
