Kerala High Court

Jalaja Sivan vs Power Grid Corporation Of India 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. 353 OF 2021
        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 515/2013 OF VI
             ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

            JALAJA SIVAN
            AGED 55 YEARS
            W/O.SIVAN, EETTUNGAPPADI, CHERANELLUR,
            KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU
            BY ADV P.T.JOSE

RESPONDENT/S:

    1       POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA
            CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, KAKKANAD, NOW IN
            PAO/400, 220KV SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O.,
            PALLIKARA, KOCHI 682 303, REP.BY DEPUTY MANAGER
    2       THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (L.A.)
            POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
            CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, NOW IN KAKKANAD
            P.O.682 030
    3       STATE OF KERALA
            REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682
            031
    4       KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
            REP.BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB
            LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
            BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR

OTHER PRESENT:

            SR.GP.PREETHA K.K.SC FOR KSEB A.ARUNKUMAR


        THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING    BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 20.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.257/2022, THE COURT
ON 16.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.353/2021 & 257/2022

                                     -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. 257 OF 2022
         AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 515/2013 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       JALAJA SIVAN
             AGED 64 YEARS
             W/O SIVAN, EETTUNGAPPADI, CHERANALLOOR,
             KOOVAPADY VILLAGE , KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
             ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683544
     2       THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
             POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
             CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017
             BY ADVS.
             P.T.JOSE
             S.ASHITHA(K/000357/2018)
             ALTHAF P.A.(K/000535/2022)
             ABEY AUGUSTINE(K/000923/2022)
         THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING       BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON   20.12.2023,     ALONG    WITH     CRP.353/2021,   THE   COURT   ON
16.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.353/2021 & 257/2022

                                   -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.515 of 2013. The original

petition was filed by the revision petitioner in

CRP No.353 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 an extent of 3.96 Ares

in Sy.No.39/18-2 of Koovappady Village in

Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land was cultivated with

various yielding and non-yielding trees. CRP Nos.353/2021 & 257/2022

According to the claimant, to facilitate drawing

of the lines and smooth transmission of power,

large number of trees were cut from her 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.13,679/-

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.353/2021 & 257/2022

concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A7

document as well as Exts.C2 and C2(a) commission

report and sketch. Relying on Ext.C2(a) sketch,

the extent of central corridor was held to be

2.815 cents and of the outer corridor was held to

be 6.445 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 entitled to

compensation of Rs.4,10,404/-. Dissatisfied with

the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has

filed CRP No.353 of 2021, whereas the Corporation

has filed CRP No.257 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 CRP Nos.353/2021 & 257/2022

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

action for filing the original petition arose

only on payment of the initial compensation,

even later.

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

claimed.

CRP Nos.353/2021 & 257/2022

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.A7 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

interested testimony of a solitary witness, who CRP Nos.353/2021 & 257/2022

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 after a long

period and had assessed the value of the trees on

a comparison with the trees standing in the

remaining property and 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 passes over a small tract of land or through the middle of the land and other CRP Nos.353/2021 & 257/2022

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,

and the manner in which the land was affected by

drawing of the lines have all been considered

fixing the land value as well as the percentage

of diminution. For the central corridor, 40% of

the land value is granted as compensation and for

the outer corridors, 20% is granted, which I find

to be just and proper. As such, there is no

illegality or material irregularity in the