Kerala High Court

Power Grid Corporation Of India vs Karthiyayini 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. 259 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.121 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       KARTHIYAYINI
            W/O. K. A KUTTAPAN, AGED 84 YEARS, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE,
            PADHUVAPURAM, PALLISSERRY, KARUKKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA
            TALUK, PIN - 683544
    2       SURESH
            S/O K. A KUTTAPAN, AGED 58 YEARS, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE,
            PADHUVAPURAM, PALLISSERRY, KARUKKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA
            TALUK ., PIN - 683544
    3       RAJI
            D/O K. A KUTTAPAN, AGED 54 YEARS, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE,
            PADHUVAPURAM, PALLISSERRY, KARUKKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA
            TALUK ., PIN - 683544
    4       THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
            POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CHEVARAMBALAM,
            KOZHIKODE ., PIN - 673017
            BY ADVS.
            P.T.JOSE
            ABREM K. JOY(K/000993/2023)

OTHER PRESENT:

            GP B.S.SYAMANTHAK;

        THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2024, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP No.259 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 respondents 1 to 3 ('the

claimants' for short) towards diminution in land

value, consequent upon the drawing of 400 KV

electric lines across their property by the

Corporation. The essential facts are as under;

The claimants are in ownership and possession

of landed property having an extent of 26 cents

comprised in Sy.No.190/1 of Karukutty Village in

Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various

yielding and non-yielding trees. According to

the claimants, to facilitate drawing of the lines

and smooth transmission of power, large number of

trees were cut from their 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 claimants, only Rs.1,16,898/- 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.C13 and C13(a)

commission report and sketch. The Advocate

Commissioner reported that the petition schedule

property is situated at a distance of 400 metres

from the Government Higher Secondary School and

Government Hospital. It is also reported that

the petition schedule property lies at a distance

of 750 metres from St.George Church and 1 Km from

Naipunniya Public School. The court below also

took note of the fact that the petition schedule

property is situated at a distance of 100 metres

from the Karukutty Palissery Munnoorpilly Road,

which is a bus route and a canal road passes

through the southern side of the property. Based

on the said factors, the court below fixed the

land value of the petition schedule property by

deducting 20% of the value shown in Ext.A5

document. Relying on Ext.C13(a) sketch, the

extent of central corridor was held to be 3.953

cents and that of the outer corridors, 5.165

cents (2.595+2.570). For the central corridor,

40% of the land value was granted as compensation

and for outer corridors, 20% of the land value.

Accordingly, the claimants were found entitled

to compensation of Rs.4,70,720/-.

3. Heard Adv.Millu Dandapani for the

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

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

claimants' property. As drawing of electric

lines does not prohibit the landowners from

conducting agricultural activities and putting up

small structures, 40% of the land value granted

for central corridor and 20% for the outer

corridors are exorbitant. Per contra, learned

Counsel for the claimants 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 witness, who is the

claimant in some of the connected cases, no other

independent witnesses were examined.

Indisputably, the trees were cut and removed in

the year 2011 and the Commissioner inspected the

property in the year 2015. The court below also

took note of the fact that the Commissioner had

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

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

property in Ext.A5 document, which according to