Kerala High Court
N.K.Madhavan Nair vs Power Grid Corporation Of India 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. 387 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.64 OF 2015 OF VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
N.K.MADHAVAN NAIR
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR, NEDUMPURATHU HOUSE,
ELAMBAKAPILLY P.O., KOOVAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR.
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA
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.)
POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE, NOW IN KAKKANAD P.O. - 682 030 NEAR CIVIL
STATION.
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:
sr.gp.v.tekchand; GP B.S.SYAMANTHAK sc for kseb
a.arunkumar
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON09.04.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.47/2022, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 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. 47 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 12.02.2021 IN OPELE NO.64 OF
2015 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 683565 REPRESENTED BY ITS
SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER
BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 N.K.MADHAVAN NAIR
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O. PADMANABHAN NAIR, NEDUMPURATH HOUSE,
ELAMBAKAPILLY P.O, KOOVAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR 683544
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CHEVARAMBALAM
PO, KOZHIKODE-673 017.
3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESNTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 030.
4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY
CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KSEB LTD., VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
5 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CHEVERAMBALAM
P.O, KOZHIKODE 673 017
6 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682 030
7 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - KSEB
CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022
-3-
REPRENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB
LTD, VAIDYUTHI BHAWAN, PATTOM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004
BY ADVS.
P.T.JOSE
R.HARISHANKAR
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON09.04.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.47/2022, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022
-4-
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.64 of 2015. The original petition was filed by
the revision petitioner in CRP No.387 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 an extent of 40.4 Ares
in Resurvey No.379/3/1 of Koovappady Village in
Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land was cultivated with
various yielding and non-yielding trees.
CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022
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.1,47,760/-
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 allowed the claim for
enhanced compensation for the value of trees cut
by awarding 50% of the compensation already
granted by the Corporation. Thus, the claimant
was found entitled for Rs.73,380/- towards the
value of trees cut. As far as the claim for
CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022
enhanced compensation towards diminution in land
value is concerned, the court below relied on
Ext.A4 document as well as Exts.C3 and C3(a)
commission report and plan. The Advocate
Commissioner reported that the petition schedule
property is situated on the southern side of the
Korumbaserry road. The court below took note of
the fact that Ext.A4 document was executed one
year after the trees were cut and removed from
the claimant's property. Based on the said
factors, the court below fixed the land value of
the claimant's property at Rs.1,53,000/- per
cent, by deducting 10% of the land value of the
property involved in Ext.A4 document. Relying on
Ext.C3(a) plan, the court below found that no
electric lines were drawn across the claimant's
property and only the outer corridor admeasuring
9.983 cents passes through the side of the
property. For the outer corridor, 20% of the
land value was granted as compensation. The court
below also took note of the fact that, the outer
CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022
corridor passes through the side of the property
without affecting the remaining petition schedule
property. Accordingly, the claimant was found
entitled to compensation of Rs.3,05,479/- towards
diminution in land value. Dissatisfied with the
quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed
CRP No.387 of 2021, whereas the Corporation has
filed CRP No.47 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 granting only 50% of the amount
already paid as enhanced compensation for the
loss sustained due to the cutting of valuable
trees, in spite of the Advocate Commissioner
assessing and reporting the loss. It is submitted
that the claimant's property is situated on the
southern side of the Korumbassery road. Without
CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022
properly considering this crucial factor, the
land value of the property is fixed as only
Rs.1,53,000/- per cent.
5. It is further submitted that the court
below grossly erred in granting only 20% of the
land value for the outer corridor and refusing to
grant anything towards the remaining property.
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 the value of
trees cut and 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.A4 for fixing the land
value of the claimant's property. As no electric
lines were drawn across the petition schedule
property and there is no prohibition on the
landowner from conducting agricultural activities
CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022
and putting up small structures, 20% of land
value granted for the outer corridor is
exorbitant.
7. The court below had awarded 50% of the
compensation already granted as additional
compensation, based on the commission report as
well as the detailed valuation statement. A
careful scrutiny of the impugned order reveals
that the claim for enhancement of compensation
towards the value of trees cut was rightly
considered on the basis of available evidence
produced.
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
CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022
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. The court below has fixed the land
value at Rs.1,53,000/-, taking into account the
fact that Ext.A4 document was executed one year
after the trees were cut and removed from the
claimant's property, which according to me, is
reasonable. The discretion was properly exercised
in granting 20% of the land value as compensation
for the outer corridor. The claim for
compensation towards remaining property was also
CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022
rightly rejected, on finding that the outer
corridor passes through a side of the property
without affecting the remaining portion.
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.
For the aforementioned reasons, the civil
CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022
revision petitions filed by the claimant as well
as the Corporation are dismissed. The enhanced
compensation fixed by the court below shall be
paid within three months of receipt of a copy of
this order. 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.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
