Kerala High Court

Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs Jacob on 12 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 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
                        CRP NO. 386 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.682 OF 2014 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       JACOB
            AGED 64 YEARS
            S/O.POULO, RESIDING AT MADAN HOUSE, MANJAPRA
            VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KERALA 683 581
    2       THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA)
            POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
            KOZHIKODE 673 017
    3       STATE OF KERALA
            REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
            ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 030
    4       KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
            REP.BY IT'S CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB
            LTD, VYDYUDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM (P.O.),
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
            BY ADVS.
            P.T.JOSE
            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.20/2022, THE COURT ON 12.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.386/21 & 20/22

                                   -2-




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
    FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
                          CRP NO. 20 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.682 OF
2014 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

             JACOB
             AGED 72 YEARS
             S/O.POULO, MADAN HOUSE, MANJAPRA, ANGAMALY - 683
             581.
             BY ADV P.T.JOSE


RESPONDENT/S:

     1       POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA
             CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
             KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682 030. NOW IN PAO/400, 220KV
             SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O.,PALLIKKARA, COCHI - 682
             030, REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.
     2       THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.)
             POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA
             LTD.,CHEVARAMBALAM,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.
             BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR

         THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2024,    ALONG   WITH   CRP.386/21,   THE   COURT   ON   12.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.386/21 & 20/22

                                -3-



                               ORDER

Dated this the 12th 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.682 of 2014. The original petition was filed

by the revision petitioner in CRP No.20 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 12.55

Ares comprised in Sy.No.289/6 of Manjapra Village

in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with

various yielding and non-yielding trees. CRP Nos.386/21 & 20/22

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.1,93,603/-

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 CRP Nos.386/21 & 20/22

document as well as Exts.C7 and C7(a) commission

report and sketch. The Advocate Commissioner

reported that the claimant's property is situated

at a distance of 250 metres from Manjapra-Chully

Road, which is a bus route and also abuts the

Idamalayar Canal Road and Panchayat Anganavadi

Road. Moreover, St. Sebastian Church, Homoeo

Clinic and LP School are situated within close

proximity to the petition schedule property.

Based on these factors, the court below adopted

the land value shown in Ext.A7 document. Relying

on Ext.C7(a) sketch, the extent of central

corridor was held to be 12.230 cents and that of

the outer corridor, 15.440 cents. For the 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.17,96,121/-.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the

claimant has filed CRP No.20 of 2022, whereas the CRP Nos.386/21 & 20/22

Corporation has filed CRP No.386 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

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.

5. It is further submitted that the court CRP Nos.386/21 & 20/22

below grossly erred in granting only 40% of the

land value for the central corridor and only 20%

for 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

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 corridor

are exorbitant.

7. A careful scrutiny of the impugned order CRP Nos.386/21 & 20/22

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 one of the connected cases, no other

witnesses were 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. As far as the diminution in land value

is concerned, the factors to be taken into

consideration, as laid down in KSEB v. Livisha CRP Nos.386/21 & 20/22

[(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 the compensation was enhanced 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. The court below has

adopted the land value in Ext.A7 document, which CRP Nos.386/21 & 20/22

according to me, is reasonable. The discretion

was properly exercised in granting 40% of the

land value as compensation for the central