Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India vs Binu Xavier 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. 394 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.18 OF 2014 OF VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
1 BINU XAVIER
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.SOURU, POONOLI HOUSE, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 544.
2 KOCHUTHRESSIA
AGED 69 YEARS
W/O.SOURU, POONOLI HOUSE, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNADU 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., 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
- 68230.
4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB
LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.256/2022, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 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. 256 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.18 OF 2014 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 BINU XAVIER
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. SOURU, POONOLI HOUSE, KOOVAPADI VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683544
2 KOCHUTHRESSIA
AGED 73 YEARS
W/O. SOURU, POONOLI HOUSE, KOOVAPADI VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -, PIN -
683544
3 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017
4 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN - 682030
5 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - KSEB
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR KSEB
LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
P.T.JOSE
CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022
-3-
S.ASHITHA(K/000357/2018)
ALTHAF P.A.(K/000535/2022)
ABEY AUGUSTINE(K/000923/2022)
OTHER PRESENT:
GP B.S.SYAMANTHAK;SC FOR KSEB A.ARUNKUMAR AND
B.PREMOD
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.394/2021, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 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.18 of 2014. The original petition was filed by
the revision petitioners in CRP No.394 of 2021
(hereinafter called 'the claimants'), being
dissatisfied with the compensation awarded
towards the damage and loss sustained due to the
drawing of 400 KV lines across their property by
the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd
(hereinafter called 'the Corporation'). The
essential facts are as under;
The claimants are in ownership and possession
of landed property having an extent of 2.81 Ares
in Sy.Nos.66/1-2-1, 6-2-3, 7-3 of Koovappady
Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land was
cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding
CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022
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 an amount of
Rs.98,015/- 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.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022
concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A7
document as well as Exts.C19 and C19(a)
commission report and sketch. The court below has
adopted the land value of the property involved
in Ext.A7 document. Relying on Ext.C19(a) sketch,
the court below found that no electric lines were
drawn across the petition schedule property and
only the outer corridor admeasuring 5.337 cents
(5.065 + 0.050 + 0.222) passes through 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 major
portion of the petition schedule property is
situated within the extent covered by the outer
corridor. Since the remaining extent admeasures
only 0.989 cents and the entire property was
found to be affected by the drawing of electric
lines, Rs.1,00,000/- was also awarded as
compensation to the claimants. Accordingly, the
claimants were found entitled to compensation of
CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022
Rs.2,81,393/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of
enhancement, the claimants have filed CRP No.394
of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP
No.256 of 2022 contending that the enhancement
ordered is far in excess of the actual damage
sustained.
3. Heard Adv.P.T.Jose for the claimants and
Adv.Millu Dandapani for the Corporation.
4. Learned Counsel for the claimants
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
CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022
action for filing the original petition arose
only on payment of the initial compensation,
even later.
5. It is further submitted that the court
below grossly erred in granting only 20% of the
land value for the outer corridor and is also
not justified in granting only Rs.1,00,000/- as
compensation even after finding the entire
property is 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 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 document for fixing the land value of the
CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022
claimants' property. As no electric lines were
drawn across the petition schedule property and
there is no prohibition on the landowner from
conducting agricultural activities and putting up
small structures, 20% of land value granted for
the outer corridor is exorbitant. The court below
grossly erred in granting additional compensation
of Rs.1,00,000/- for the 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 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
CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022
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
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
claimants 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
CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022
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. 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 outer
CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022
corridor, 20% of the land value is granted as
compensation, which I find to be just and proper.
Similarly, discretion was properly exercised by
the court below in granting Rs.1,00,000/- as
compensation, finding the entire property is
affected due to the drawing of electric lines.
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
CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022
of the revisional power under Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
For the aforementioned reasons, the civil
revision petitions filed by the claimants 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 claimants on their
filing appropriate application. The entire
enhanced compensation shall be paid to the
claimants within three months of receipt of a
copy of this order.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
