Kerala High Court
Anitha 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. 395 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.903 OF 2013 OF VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
ANITHA
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O.E.M.MOHANAN, ELAVANAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALISSERY,
KARUKKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA - 680 308.
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., PALLIKARA, KOCHI
- 682 303, REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.)
POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE - 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 JIBU T.S.; SC FOR KSEB B.PREMOD
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
ON 19.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.163/2022, THE COURT ON
23.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.395/2021 & 163/2022
-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. 163 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.903 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 - 683 565,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER, PIN -
683565
BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 ANITHA
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. E.M MOHANAN, ELAVANAPPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PALISSERRY, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE , ALUVA - 683 582, PIN
- 683582
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
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
ON 19.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.395/2021, THE COURT ON
23.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.395/2021 & 163/2022
-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.903 of 2013. The original petition was filed
by the revision petitioner in CRP No.395 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 her 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 48 cents
in Sy.Nos.1361/1,2,3,8, 1361/6/1,2,3, 1365/4,5 of
Karukutty Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was
cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding
trees. According to the claimant, to facilitate
CRP Nos.395/2021 & 163/2022
drawing of the lines and smooth transmission of
power, large number of trees were cut from her
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.1,41,842/- 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.C3 and C3(a) commission
CRP Nos.395/2021 & 163/2022
report and sketch. The Advocate Commissioner
reported that a canal road, which leads to the
Pallissery Karamattam road passes through the
southern side and another road having width of 2-
4 metres passes through the eastern side of the
claimant's property. It is also reported that the
Government Higher Secondary School, Government
Hospital, SCMS College and a Milk Society are
situated at a distance of 1 Km from the petition
schedule property. Similarly, Holy Family Church
is at a distance of about 2 Km and SNDP Junction
and Thabor Junction are situated in close
proximity to the claimant's property. Moreover, a
purayidam is also reported to be situated in the
petition schedule property. Based on the said
factors, the court below fixed the land value of
the claimant's property at Rs.2,02,571/- per
cent, by deducting 10% of the land value of the
property involved in Ext.A5 document. Relying on
Ext.C3(a) sketch, the central corridor was held
to be 13.465 cents and that of the outer
CRP Nos.395/2021 & 163/2022
corridors is 17.79 cents (8.895 + 8.895). The
court below also took note of the fact that the
electric lines were drawn across the centre of
the petition schedule property and a remaining
area admeasuring 3.410 cents lies on the northern
side of the property. For the central corridor,
40% of the land value was granted as compensation
and for the outer corridors, 20% of the land
value. Taking into account the fact that the
electric lines were drawn across the centre of
the property, the court below has also granted
Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant.
Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to
compensation of Rs.19,11,794/-. Dissatisfied with
the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has
filed CRP No.395 of 2021, whereas the Corporation
has filed CRP No.163 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.
CRP Nos.395/2021 & 163/2022
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. It is submitted that a canal road, which
leads to the Pallissery Karamattam road passes
through the southern side and another road having
width of 2-4 metres passes through the eastern
side of the claimant's property. It is also
reported that the Government Higher Secondary
School, Government Hospital, SCMS College and a
Milk Society are situated at a distance of 1 Km
from the petition schedule property. Similarly,
Holy Family Church is at a distance of about 2 Km
and SNDP Junction and Thabor Junction are
situated in close proximity to the claimant's
property. Moreover, a purayidam is also reported
to be situated in the petition schedule property.
Without considering these crucial factors, 10%
CRP Nos.395/2021 & 163/2022
deduction was made from the value of the property
involved in Ext.A5 document.
5. It is submitted that the court below
grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land
value as compensation for the central corridor
and only 20% for the outer corridors. It is
further submitted that the court below is not
justified in granting only Rs.1,00,000/- even
after finding the electric lines were drawn
across the centre of the 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 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
claimant's property. As the drawing of electric
CRP Nos.395/2021 & 163/2022
lines does not prohibit the landowner from
conducting agricultural activities and putting up
small structures, 40% of the land value granted
for the central corridor and 20% for the outer
corridors are exorbitant. The court below grossly
erred in granting Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation
towards the remaining property, 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 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
CRP Nos.395/2021 & 163/2022
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.
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
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
CRP Nos.395/2021 & 163/2022
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 fixed the land value at Rs.2,02,571/- per
cent, viz, 10% less than the value shown in
Ext.A5 document, which according to me, is
reasonable. Similarly, discretion was properly
exercised by the court below in granting 40% of
the land value as compensation for the central
corridor and 20% for the outer corridors. The
court below has granted Rs.1,00,000/- as
additional compensation, finding the electric
lines were drawn across the centre of the
property, which also I find to be just and
CRP Nos.395/2021 & 163/2022
proper.
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
revision petitions filed by the claimant as well
as the Corporation are dismissed. The enhanced
compensation fixed by the court below shall be
CRP Nos.395/2021 & 163/2022
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
her filing appropriate application.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
