Kerala High Court
T.T.Xavier vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd 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. 399 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.621 OF
2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
T.T.XAVIER
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.THOMA, THELAKKATTU HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR,
KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT - 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., PALLIKKARA,
KOCHI - 682 303 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
OTHER PRESENT:
GP B.S.SYAMANTHAK;GP JIBU T.S. SC FOR KSEB
A.ARUNKUMAR
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.177/2022, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.399 of 2021 and 177 of 2022
-2-
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. 177 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.621 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 T T XAVIER
S/O. THOMA, AGED 57 YEARS, THELAKKATTU HOUSE,
CHERANALLOOR, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD
TALUK., PIN - 683544
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE - 673 017, PIN - 673017
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI
- 682 030, PIN - 682030
4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - KSEB
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR KSEB
LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, PIN - 695001
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.399/2021 THE COURT ON 23.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.399 of 2021 and 177 of 2022
-3-
ORDER
Dated this the 23rd 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.621 of 2013. The original petition was filed
by the revision petitioner in CRP No.399 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 6.93
Ares in Sy.Nos.64/10, 64/7 and 40/6 of Koovappady
Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land was
cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding
CRP Nos.399 of 2021 and 177 of 2022
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.20,261/- 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.399 of 2021 and 177 of 2022
concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A7
document as well as Exts.C14 and C14(a)
commission report and sketch. The court below has
adopted the land value of the property involved
in Ext.A7 document. Relying on Ext.C14(a) plan,
the extent of central corridor was held to be
0.570 cents and that of the outer corridor, 4.940
cents. The court below also took note of the fact
that a small portion of the house is situated
within the extent covered by the outer corridor.
For the central corridor, 40% of the land value
was granted as compensation and for the outer
corridor, 20% of the land value. The court below
also granted Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards
injurious affection on the house. Accordingly,
the claimant was found entitled to compensation
of Rs.2,31,646/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum
of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.399
of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP
No.177 of 2022 contending that the enhancement
CRP Nos.399 of 2021 and 177 of 2022
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 submitted that the court below
grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land
CRP Nos.399 of 2021 and 177 of 2022
value for the central corridor and only 20% for
the outer corridor. It is further submitted that
the court below is not justified in granting only
Rs.25,000/- as compensation even after finding
the house is situated within the extent covered
by the 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 the land value granted
CRP Nos.399 of 2021 and 177 of 2022
for the central corridor and 20% for the outer
corridor are exorbitant. The court below grossly
erred in granting Rs.25,000/- towards injurious
affection on the house, 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
independent witnesses were examined. The court
below also 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
CRP Nos.399 of 2021 and 177 of 2022
Commissioner, which was based on an overview of
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
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
CRP Nos.399 of 2021 and 177 of 2022
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 central
corridor, 40% of the land value is granted as
compensation and for outer corridor, 20% is
granted, which also I find to be just and proper.
CRP Nos.399 of 2021 and 177 of 2022
Similarly, discretion was properly exercised by
the court below in granting Rs.25,000/-, towards
injurious affection on the house situated in the
outer corridor.
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]. 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.
CRP Nos.399 of 2021 and 177 of 2022
For the aforementioned reasons, the civil
revision petitions filed by the claimant as well
as the Corporation are dismissed.
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 entire
enhanced compensation shall be paid to the
claimant within three months of receipt of a copy
of this order.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
