Kerala High Court
Avarachan M.P 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. 358 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.904 OF 2013 OF VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
AVARACHAN M.P.
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. PAILY PILLA, MAMBAKKATTU HOUSE, KAMMANODE,
PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
P.T.JOSE
S.ASHITHA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, KAKKANAD, NOW IN
PAO/400,220 KV SUB STATION, KUMANRAPURAM P.O.,
PALLIKARA, KOCHI-682 303, REP BY DEPUTY MANAGER
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE, NOW IN KAKKANAD P.O-682 030
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-
682 021
4 KERALA STATION ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB
LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
BY ADV ROJO JOSEPH
OTHER PRESENT:
GP JIBU T.S.SC FOR KSEB B.PREMOD; ADV.PRAVEEN K.JOY
FOR POWERGRID
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.238/2021, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021
-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. 238 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.904 OF 2013 OF VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
PALLIKKARA, COCHIN 682 030.
BY ADV ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 AVARACHAN M.P.,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. PAILY PILLA, MAMBAKKATTU HOUSE, KUMMANODE,
PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM
DT. 683 562.
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE 673 017.
3 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI
682 030.
4 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KSEB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
BY ADVS.
P.T.JOSE
S.ASHITHA
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.358/2021, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021
-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.904 of 2013. The original petition was filed
by the revision petitioner in CRP No.358 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 25.91 Ares
in Resurvey No.514/10/3 of Pattimattam Village in
Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land was cultivated with
various yielding and non-yielding trees.
According to the claimant, to facilitate drawing
CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021
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.2,10,540/-
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.1,05,270/- towards the
value of trees cut. As far as the claim for
enhanced compensation towards diminution in land
CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021
value is concerned, the court below relied on
Ext.A5 document as well as Exts.C1 and C1(a)
commission report and sketch. The court below has
took note of the fact that the petition schedule
property is situated at a distance of 200 metres
from Perumbavoor-Puthencruz road and 150 metres
from Periyar Valley road. Moreover, LP School,
Anganavadi and Temple are situated on the
northern side of the petition schedule property.
It is also reported by the Commissioner that a
road that starts from the canal bund road passes
through the northern side of the petition
schedule property and a lot of reputed
institutions are situated within a radius of a
150 metres. Based on the said factors and also
considering the fact that there is no direct
public road access to the petition schedule
property, the court below fixed the land value of
the claimant's property at Rs.1,89,695/- per
cent, by deducting 10% of the land value of the
property involved in Ext.A5 document. Relying on
CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021
Ext.C1(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor
was held to be 17.960 cents and that of the outer
corridor, 37.410 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 claimant was found
entitled to compensation of Rs.27,82,065/-
towards diminution in land value. Dissatisfied
with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has
filed CRP No.358 of 2021, whereas the Corporation
has filed CRP No.238 of 2021 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.Rojo Joseph 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
CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021
assessing and reporting the loss. It is submitted
that the petition schedule property is situated
at a distance of 200 metres from Perumbavoor-
Puthencruz road and 150 metres from Periyar
Valley road. Moreover, LP School, Anganavadi and
Temple are situated on the northern side of the
petition schedule property. It is also reported
by the Commissioner that a road that starts from
the canal bund road passes through the northern
side of the petition schedule property and a lot
of reputed institutions are situated within a
radius of a 150 metres. Without properly
considering these crucial factors, 10% 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 fixed for the central corridor and 20% for
the outer corridor. It is further submitted that
the court below is not justified in refusing to
grant anything towards the remaining property,
CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021
which is also affected due to the drawing of
electric lines. 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.A5 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 for the central corridor and 20%
for the outer corridor are exorbitant.
7. The court below had awarded 50% of the
compensation already granted as additional
compensation, based on the Commission report as
CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021
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
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.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021
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 fixed the land value at Rs.1,89,695/- 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 corridor. The
court below has also rightly rejected the claim
towards the diminution of land value for the
remaining property, on finding that the electric
lines were drawn across the extreme southern side
of the property without affecting the remaining
CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021
portion of the petition schedule property.
9. The contention of the Corporation that
the Government having fixed the land 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
CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021
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/
