Kerala High Court

P.L.Jose vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd on 16 February, 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 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945
                         CRP NO. 402 OF 2021
        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 544/2013 OF VI
                ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

               P.L.JOSE
               AGED 71 YEARS
               S/O.OUSEPH, PUTHUSSERRY HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM,
               KARUKUTTY, ALUVA - 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
               SUB STATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKARA, KOCHI
               - 682 303 REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.
    2          THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.)
               POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., 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.
               BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR

OTHER PRESENT:

               GP SYLAJA S.L.;SR.GP.PREETHA K.K.
        THIS    CIVIL   REVISION   PETITION   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY
HEARD ON 20.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.179/2022, THE COURT
ON 16.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.402/2021 & 179/2022

                                -2-



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
 FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945
                       CRP NO. 179 OF 2022
        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 544/2013 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       P.O. JOSE
            AGED 72 YEARS
            S/O.OUSEPH , PUTHUSSERRY HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM
            ,KARUKUTTY VILLAGE , ALUVA, PIN - 683576
    2       THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
            POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
            CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017
    3       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM,
            KOCHI, PIN - 682030
    4       KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - KSEB
            REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR KSEB
            LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
            BY ADV P.T.JOSE
        THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.402/2021, THE COURT ON 16.02.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.402/2021 & 179/2022

                                    -3-



                                   ORDER

Dated this the 16th day of February, 2024

These revision petitions are filed

challenging the common order passed by the

Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P.

(Electricity) No.544 of 2013. The original

petition was filed by the revision petitioner in

CRP No.402 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 19.73 Ares

comprised in Sy.Nos.202/4 and 214/7 of Karukutty

Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated

with various yielding and non-yielding trees. CRP Nos.402/2021 & 179/2022

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.1,76,356/-

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.402/2021 & 179/2022

concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A5

document as well as Exts.C8 and C8(a) commission

report and sketch. The Advocate Commissioner

reported that the claimant's property is situated

in a residential area and the Palissery

Government Hospital as well as Palissery Higher

Secondary School situates less than half Km away

from his property. Moreover, Karukutty Service

Co-operative Bank, Naipunniya Public School and

St.George Church are situated at a distance

within 1 Km from his property. Based on these

factors, the court below fixed the land value of

the claimant's property by deducting 20% of the

value shown in Ext.A5 property. Relying on

Ext.C8(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor

was held to be 0.300 cents and of the outer

corridor, 10.770 cents. For the central corridor,

40% of the land value was granted as compensation

and for the outer corridor, 20% of the land

value. Accordingly, the claimant was found CRP Nos.402/2021 & 179/2022

entitled to compensation of Rs.4,09,462/-.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the

claimant has filed CRP No.402 of 2021, whereas

the Corporation has filed CRP No.179 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. 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.402/2021 & 179/2022

action for filing the original petition arose

only on payment of the initial compensation, even

later. It is submitted that the claimant's

property is situated in a residential area and

the Palissery Government Hospital as well as

Palissery Higher Secondary School situates less

than half Km away from his property. Moreover,

Karukutty Service Co-operative Bank, Naipunniya

Public School and St.George Church are situated

at a distance within 1 Km from his property.

Without considering these crucial factors, 20%

deduction was made from the value of the property

involved in Ext.A5 document.

5. It is submitted that the court below

grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land

value fixed for the central corridor and 20% 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 CRP Nos.402/2021 & 179/2022

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.A5 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

corridor are 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 CRP Nos.402/2021 & 179/2022

interested testimony of a solitary witness, who

is the claimant in some of the connected cases,

no other independent witness was examined to

prove the claim. It is also not in dispute that

the trees were cut in the year 2011 and the

commissioner inspected the property in the year

2015 and assessed the value of the trees on a

comparison with the trees standing in the nearby

properties. Such comparison, 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 CRP Nos.402/2021 & 179/2022

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 have all been considered for fixing

the land value as well as the percentage of

diminution. The court below has deducted only 20%

of the land value in Ext.A5, which according to

me, is a reasonable deduction. For the central

corridor, 40% of the land value is granted as