Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India vs P.T.Francis 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. 317 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2020 IN OPELE NO.354 OF
2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER, (COCHIN),
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.
BY ADV ANJANA KANNATH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 P.T.FRANCIS
AGED 54 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-
682 030.
4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
BY ADVS.
P.T.JOSE
S.ASHITHA
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 338/2021, THE COURT ON 05.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.317 & 338 of 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. 338 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.354 OF 2013 OF VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
P.T.FRANCIS
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. P. P. THOMAS, PALATTY HOUSE, MANJAPRA P. O.,
ANGAMALY - 683581.
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., PALLIKARA,
KOCHI - 682303, REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.)
POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE, NOW IN KAKKANAD P. O. - 682030.
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.
BY ADV ANJANA KANNATH
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP 317/2021, THE COURT ON 05.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.317 & 338 of 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.354 of 2013. The original petition was filed
by the revision petitioner in CRP No.338 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 her 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 23.09
Ares made up of 11.37 Ares in Sy.No.593/2-1 and
11.72 Ares in Sy.No.593/3-3 in Block No.20 of
Manjapra Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was
CRP Nos.317 & 338 of 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.1,80,790/- 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
CRP Nos.317 & 338 of 2021
compensation towards diminution in land value is
concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A13
document as well as Exts.C2 and C2(a) commission
report and sketch. 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 deducting 10% of the
land value shown in Ext.A13 document. The court
below also took note of the fact that the
electric line has been drawn across the centre of
the petition schedule property. Relying on
Ext.C2(a) plan, the extent of central corridor
CRP Nos.317 & 338 of 2021
was held to be 10.328 cents and that of the outer
corridors, 13.169 cents (6.547 + 6.622). The
court below also took note of the fact that the
remaining portion of land admeasuring 61.653
cents is also affected due to the drawing of
electric lines. For the central corridor, 40% 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.19,94,837/-.
Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the
claimant has filed CRP No.338 of 2021, whereas
the Corporation has filed CRP No.317 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
CRP Nos.317 & 338 of 2021
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
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 40% of the
land value as compensation for central corridor
and only 20% for the outer corridors. It is
submitted that the court below is not justified
in granting only 5% of the land value towards
the remaining property, which was rendered
CRP Nos.317 & 338 of 2021
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
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, 40% of the land
value granted for the central corridor 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
CRP Nos.317 & 338 of 2021
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
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
CRP Nos.317 & 338 of 2021
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. For the central
corridor, 40% 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
CRP Nos.317 & 338 of 2021
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
Corporation had paid Rs.1,80,790/- 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
CRP Nos.317 & 338 of 2021
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
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/
