Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India vs Velayudhan K K 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. 108 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.17 OF 2014 OF VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
VELAYUDHAN K.K.
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN, KARUKAMPILLI HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM P.O.,
PALISSERRY KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ANGAMALY 683 576.
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682 030, NOW IN PAO/400, 220KV,
SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKARA KOCHI 682
303, REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.)
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CHEVARAMBALM,
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.
OTHER PRESENT:
GP B.S.SYAMANTHAK sc for kaseb a.arunkumar and
b.premod
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.168/2022, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.108 & 168 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. 168 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.17 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 - 683 565,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER, PIN -
683565
BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 VELAYUDHAN K K
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAN , AGED 53 YEARS , KARUKAMPILLI HOUSE
,PADUVAPURAM P,O , PALLISSERY , KARUKUTTY VILLAGE ,
ANGAMALY, PIN - 683576
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
18.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.108/2022, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.108 & 168 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.17 of 2014. The original petition was filed by
the revision petitioner in CRP No.108 of 2022
(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 24.61 Ares
in Sy.No.354/12 of Karukutty Village in Aluva
Taluk. The land was cultivated with various
yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the
CRP Nos.108 & 168 of 2022
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.84,199/- 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.C9 and C9(a) commission
CRP Nos.108 & 168 of 2022
report and sketch. The Advocate Commissioner
reported that the claimant's property is situated
on the western side of the Karukutty Palissery
Road and the Palissery Higher Secondary School,
Government Hospital and Karukutty Service Co-
metres from the property. Similarly, St.George
Church and Naipunniya Public School are situated
at a distance of 400 metres and about 1.5 Km,
respectively. Moreover, a chicken centre, a cold
drinks shop and a workshop are also reported to
be within close proximity to the petition
schedule property. Based on the said factors, the
court below fixed the land value of the
claimant's property at Rs.1,80,063/- per cent,
which is equivalent to 20% less than the land
value of the property involved in Ext.A5
document. Relying on Ext.C9(a) sketch, the court
below found that no electric lines were drawn
across the petition schedule property and only
the outer corridor admeasuring 2.520 cents passes
CRP Nos.108 & 168 of 2022
through the property. For the outer corridor,
20% of the land value was granted as
compensation. Accordingly, the claimant was found
entitled to compensation of Rs.90,751/-.
Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the
claimant has filed CRP No.108 of 2022, whereas
the Corporation has filed CRP No.168 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 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 the the claimant's
property is situated on the western side of
Karukutty Palissery Road and the Palissery Higher
Secondary School, Government Hospital and
CRP Nos.108 & 168 of 2022
Karukutty Service Co-operative Bank are situated
at a distance of 50 metres from the property.
Similarly, St.George Church and Naipunniya Public
School are situated at a distance of 400 metres
and about 1.5 Km, respectively. Moreover, a
chicken centre, a cold drinks shop and a workshop
are also reported to be within close proximity to
the petition schedule property. Without
considering these crucial factors, the land value
was fixed as Rs.1,80,063/- per cent.
5. It is further submitted that the court
below grossly erred in granting only 20% of the
land value as compensation for 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
CRP Nos.108 & 168 of 2022
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 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.
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
CRP Nos.108 & 168 of 2022
Commissioner inspected the property in the year
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."
CRP Nos.108 & 168 of 2022
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. 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.1,80,063/- per
cent, viz, 20% 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 20% of
the land value as compensation for 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
CRP Nos.108 & 168 of 2022
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
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
CRP Nos.108 & 168 of 2022
shall forthwith be released to the claimant on
his filing appropriate application.
sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
