Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India vs P.T.Jose 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. 319 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.361 OF 2013 OF VI
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.JOSE
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.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-
682 031.
4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANGING DIRECTOR,
KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
BY ADVS.
K.G.GOPAKUMAR
MILLU DANDAPANI
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
A.ARUNKUMAR
S.ASHITHA
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.V.TEKCHAND;
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 15.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.331/2021, THE COURT ON
05.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.319 & 331/2021
-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. 331 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.361 OF 2013 OF VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
ADV.P.T.JOSE
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. P.P.THOMAS, PALATTY HOUSE, MAJAPRA VILLAGE,
ANGAMALY-683 581.
BY ADV K.G.GOPAKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CONSTRUCTION
AREA OFFICE, KAKKANAD NOW IN PAO/400, 200 KV
SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM PO, PALLIKARA, KOCHI-682303.
REP BY: DEPUTY MANAGER.
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
2 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE-17. NOW IN KAKKANAD PO 682030.
STATE OF KERALA
ADDL.R3 REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-
682 031.
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
ADDL.R4 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANGING DIRECTOR,
KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 15.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.331/2021, THE COURT ON
05.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.319 & 331/2021
-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.361 of 2013. The original petition was filed
by the revision petitioner in CRP No.331 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 a total extent of 23.92
Ares made up of 11.43 Ares in Sy.No.593/2-2 and
12.49 Ares in Sy.No.593/3-2 in Block No.20 of
Manjapra Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was
CRP Nos.319 & 331/2021
cultivated with various yielding and 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.1,72,017/- 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.319 & 331/2021
concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A13
document as well as Exts.C1 and C1(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
road access, 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 granting 90% of the
land value shown in Ext.A13 document. The court
below also took note of the fact that the
electric lines were drawn across the centre of
the petition schedule property. Relying on
Ext.C1(a) plan, the extent covered by electric
lines and tower was held to be 10.353 cents and
that of the outer corridors, 12.971 cents (6.448
CRP Nos.319 & 331/2021
+ 6.523). The court below also took note of the
fact that the remaining portion of land
admeasuring 64.025 cents is also affected due to
the drawing of electric lines. For the area
covered by electric lines and tower, 100% of the
land value was granted as compensation and for
the outer corridors, 20% of the land value. The
compensation for remaining property was granted
at the rate of 5% of the land value fixed by the
court. Accordingly, the claimant was found
entitled to compensation of Rs.32,71,190/-.
Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the
claimant has filed CRP No.331 of 2021, whereas
the Corporation has filed CRP No.319 of 2021
contending that the enhancement ordered is far in
excess of the actual damage sustained.
3. Heard Adv.K.G.Gopakumar 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
CRP Nos.319 & 331/2021
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
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
corridors and only 5% of the land value towards
the remaining property, which was also rendered
useless due to the drawing of electric lines.
Considering the extent of damage sustained and
the diminution in land value, the court below
ought to have granted compensation as claimed.
6. Learned Counsel for the Corporation
CRP Nos.319 & 331/2021
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 the
drawing of electric lines does not prohibit the
landowner from conducting agricultural activities
and putting up small structures, 100% of the land
value granted for the extent covered by the
electric lines along with the area covered by the
tower and 20% for the outer corridors are
exorbitant. The court below grossly erred in
granting 5% of the land value 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. The
court below also took note of the fact that even
CRP Nos.319 & 331/2021
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
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.319 & 331/2021
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 granted 90% of
the land value shown in Ext.A13, which according
to me, is reasonable. For the area covered by
electric lines and tower, 100% of the land value
is granted as compensation and for the outer
corridors, 20% is granted, which also I find to
be just and proper. The discretion was properly
exercised for granting 5% land value as
compensation for the remaining property.
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
CRP Nos.319 & 331/2021
Corporation had paid Rs.1,72,017/- 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
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
CRP Nos.319 & 331/2021
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/
