Kerala High Court
P.T.Davis vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd on 5 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
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
CRP NO. 315 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.356 OF 2013 OF I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA,
SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER (COCHIN), CONSTRUCTION AREA
OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682
030.
BY ADV ANJANA KANNATH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 P.T.DAVIS,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.P.P.THOMAS, PALATTY HOUSE, MAJAPRA VILLAGE,
ANGAMALY-683 581.
2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE-17.
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.V.TEKCHAND;SC FOR KSEB A.ARUNKUMAR;SC FOR
POWERGRID MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.335/2021, THE COURT ON 05.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.315 & 335/2021
-2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
CRP NO. 335 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.356 OF 2013 OF VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
P.T.DAVIS
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.P.P.THOMAS, PALATTY HOUSE, MANJAPRA P.O.,
ANGAMALY - 683 581.
BY ADVS.
P.T.JOSE
S.ASHITHA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, KAKKANAD, NOW IN PAO/400,
220KV SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKKARA,
KOCHI - 682 303 REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE, NOW IN KAKKANAD P.O. - 682 030.
3 ADDL.R3 - STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI
- 68230.
4 ADDL.R4 - KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSHB
LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV ANJANA KANNATH
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.315/2021, THE COURT ON 05.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.315 & 335/2021
-3-
ORDER
Dated this the 05th 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.356 of 2013. The original petition was filed
by the revision petitioner in CRP No.335 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 1 Acre 12
cents comprised in Sy.Nos.596/6 and 596/7 in
Block No.20 of Manjapra Village in Aluva Taluk.
The land was cultivated with various yielding and
CRP Nos.315 & 335/2021
non-yielding trees. 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.1,83,178/- 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.A13
CRP Nos.315 & 335/2021
document as well as Exts.C3 and C3(a) commission
report and plan. The Advocate Commissioner
reported that the Patricks Academy, Primary
Health Centre, Government Homeo Dispensary,
Government Hospital, Government High School and
Jyothis Central School etc are situated within
close proximity to the claimant's property. The
court took note of the fact that while the
property in Ext.A13 document is having public
roads on the northern side, the petition schedule
property has no direct public road access. Based
on these factors, the court below fixed the land
value of the claimant's property by deducting 10%
of the land value shown in Ext.A13 document. The
court below also took note of the fact that no
electric line has been drawn across the petition
schedule property. Relying on Ext.C3(a) plan, the
extent of outer corridor, which passes through
the extreme western side of the claimant's
property, was held to be 8.846 cents. The court
also noted that the remaining portion of land was
CRP Nos.315 & 335/2021
not affected since the only outer corridor passes
through the extreme western side of the petition
schedule property. For the outer corridor, 20%
of the land value was granted as compensation.
Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to
compensation of Rs.3,58,386/-. Dissatisfied with
the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has
filed CRP No.335 of 2021, whereas the Corporation
has filed CRP No.315 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.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 Patricks Academy,
Primary Health Centre, Government Homeo
CRP Nos.315 & 335/2021
Dispensary, Government Hospital, Government High
School and Jyothis Central School etc are
situated within close proximity to the claimant's
property. Without considering these crucial
factors, 10% deduction was made from the value of
the property involved in Ext.A13 document.
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. The court
below also erred in relying on Ext.A13 for fixing
the land value of the claimant's property. As
there is no electric line drawn across the
petition schedule property, 20% of the land value
CRP Nos.315 & 335/2021
granted for the outer corridor as compensation 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. The
court below also took note of the fact that even
the Commissioner could not see any trees or stump
of the trees at the time of inspection.
Therefore, the court below rightly held that the
evidence let in by the claimant 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
distance between the high voltage
CRP Nos.315 & 335/2021
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,
the commercial importance of the area and the
manner in which the land was affected by drawing
of the lines are all seen considered in fixing
the land value as well as the percentage of
diminution. The court below has deducted only 10%
of the land value shown in Ext.A13, which
according to me, is reasonable. The discretion
was properly exercised in granting 20% of the
CRP Nos.315 & 335/2021
land value as compensation for the outer
corridor.
9. Having held as above, I find a patent
mistake in the order, which is liable to be
corrected in exercise of this Court's revisional
jurisdiction. It is seen that initially the
Corporation had paid Rs.1,83,178/- towards the
value of trees cut alone and had refused to pay
any amount towards diminution in land value. As
per the impugned order, the court below rejected
the claim for enhancement of compensation towards
value of trees cut and awarded compensation
towards diminution in land value. Even though the
court below did not grant compensation for the
value of trees cut, the impugned order contains a
direction to deduct the compensation already paid
from the enhanced compensation awarded. This may
be interpreted as a direction to deduct the
compensation initially paid towards value of
trees from the compensation towards diminution in
land value granted by the court below. The
CRP Nos.315 & 335/2021
impugned order, to that extent, need to be
corrected.
For the aforementioned reasons, the civil
revision petition filed by the claimant is
allowed in part. The direction in the impugned
order, to deduct the compensation already paid
from the enhanced compensation is deleted. The
enhanced compensation awarded by the court below
shall be paid within three months, without any
deduction. 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.
The civil revision petition filed by the
Corporation is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
