Kerala High Court

Power Grid Corporation Of India vs P.M Yacob (Baby) on 23 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
   TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946
                        CRP NO. 258 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.586 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       P.M YACOB (BABY)
            AGED 78 YEARS
            S/O. MATHAI, PLACHERI HOUSE, THABOR P.O, MUKKANNUR ,
            ALUVA, PIN - 683577
    2       THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
            POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
            KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017
    3       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRASENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR , ERNAKULAM, PIN -
            682031
    4       KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - KSEB
            REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR KSEB
            LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, PIN - 695001
            BY ADVS.
            P.T.JOSE
            S.ASHITHA(K/000357/2018)
            ALTHAF P.A.(K/000535/2022)
            ABEY AUGUSTINE(K/000923/2022)

OTHER PRESENT:

            GP B.S.SYAMANTHAK; SC FOR KSEB A.ARUNKUMAR

        THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2024, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP No.258 of 2022

                                   -2-



                                  ORDER

Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2024

The revision petitioner, Power Grid

Corporation of India Ltd ('the Corporation' for

short), is aggrieved by the enhanced compensation

ordered to be paid to the first respondent

towards diminution in land value, consequent

upon the drawing of 400 KV electric lines across

his property by the Corporation. The essential

facts are as under;

The first respondent is in ownership and

possession of landed property having an extent of

13.34 Ares in Sy.No.613/B of Mukkannur Village in

Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various

yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the

first respondent, 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 first respondent, only Rs.24,148/- 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

document as well as Exts.C10 and C10(a)

commission report and sketch. The Advocate

Commissioner reported that the first respondent's

property is situated in close proximity to the

Poothamkutty Service Co-operative Bank. Moreover,

Palissery Government Hospital and Government

Higher Secondary School are also situated at a

distance of 2.5 Km from the petition schedule

property. The court below also took note of the

fact that the petition schedule property is

situated at a distance of 500 metres from

Poothamkuty-Angamaly road, which is a bus route

and a road passes through the southern side of

the property. Based on these factors, the court

below fixed the land value of the first

respondent's property at Rs.1,80,063/- per cent,

which is equivalent to 20% less than the land

value shown in Ext.A5 document. Relying on

Ext.C10(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor

was held to be 1.408 cents and that of the outer

corridor, 6.276 cents. For the central corridor,

40% of the land value was granted as compensation

and for the outer corridor, 20% of the land

value. Accordingly, the first respondent was

found entitled to compensation of Rs.3,27,426/-.

3. Heard Adv.Millu Dandapani for the

Corporation and Adv.P.T.Jose for the first

respondent.

4. 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.A5 for fixing the land value of the first

respondent's property. As the drawing of electric

lines does not prohibit the land owner from

conducting agricultural activities and putting up

small structures, 40% of the land value granted

for the central corridor and 20% for the outer

corridor are exorbitant. Per contra, learned

Counsel for the first respondent argued that the

enhancement was granted after considering all

relevant factors.

5. 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 solitary witness, who

is the claimant in some of the connected cases,

no other independent witnesses were examined to

prove the claim. It is also not in dispute that

the trees were cut in the year 2011 and the

commissioner inspected the property in the year

2015 and assessed the value of trees based on an

overview of the trees standing in the nearby

properties. Such assessment, having no scientific

basis, is not sufficient to discard the

contemporaneous valuation statement prepared by

the Corporation.

6. 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

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. Based on the above factors and a

comparison of the petition schedule property with

the property involved in Ext.A5, the court below

has deducted 20% of the land value of the