Kerala High Court

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. 361 OF 2021
        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 514/2013 OF VI
                ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

    1          SIVAN
               AGED 56 YEARS
               S/O.KANDAKORAN, EETTUNGAPPADI, CHERANELLUR,
               KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK 683544
    2          JALAJA
               W/O. SIVAN, KANDAKORAN, EETTUNGAPPADI,
               CHERANELLUR, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU
               683544
               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 REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY
               MANAGER
    2          THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A)
               POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,
               CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, NOW IN NEAR CIVIL
               STATION, KOZHIKODE PIN 682 030
    3          STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM,
               KOCHI-682021
    4          KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - KSEB
               REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
               KSEB LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
               BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR
OTHER PRESENT:
         SR.GP.PREETHA K.K.
        THIS    CIVIL   REVISION   PETITION   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY
HEARD ON 20.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.185/2022, THE COURT
ON 16.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.361/2021 & 185/22

                                -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. 185 OF 2022
        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 514/2013 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       SIVAN AND JALAJA
            EETTUNGAPPADI,CHERANALLOOR, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE,
            KUNNATHUNADU TALUK., PIN - 683544
    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
        THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.361/2021, THE COURT ON 16.02.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.361/2021 & 185/22

                                  -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.514 of 2013. The original

petition was filed by the revision petitioners in

CRP No.361 of 2021 (hereinafter called 'the

claimants'), being dissatisfied with the

compensation awarded towards the damage and loss

sustained due to the drawing of 400 KV lines

across their property by the Power Grid

Corporation of India Ltd (hereinafter called 'the

Corporation'). The essential facts are as under;

The claimants are in ownership and possession

of landed property having an extent of 8.50 Ares

in Sy.No.40/26 of Koovappady Village in

Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land was cultivated with

various yielding and non-yielding trees. CRP Nos.361/2021 & 185/22

According to the claimants, to facilitate drawing

of the lines and smooth transmission of power,

large number of trees were cut from their

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 claimants, only an amount of

Rs.2,20,315/- 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.361/2021 & 185/22

concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A7

document as well as Exts.C1 and C1(a) commission

report and sketch. Relying on Ext.C1(a) sketch,

the extent of central corridor was held to be

2.200 cents and of the outer corridor was held to

be 9.095 cents. For the central corridor, 40% of

the land value was granted as compensation and

for the outer corridors, 20% of the land value.

Accordingly, the claimants were found entitled to

compensation of Rs.4,58,667/-. Dissatisfied with

the quantum of enhancement, the claimants have

filed CRP No.361 of 2021, whereas the Corporation

has filed CRP No.185 of 2022 contending that the

enhancement ordered is far in excess of the

actual damage sustained.

3. Heard Adv.P.T.Jose for the claimants and

Adv.Millu Dandapani for the Corporation.

4. Learned Counsel for the claimants

contended that the court below committed gross

illegality in refusing to grant enhanced CRP Nos.361/2021 & 185/22

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 corridors. 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.361/2021 & 185/22

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

claimants' properties. As the drawing of electric

lines does not prohibit the landowners 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.

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.361/2021 & 185/22

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.361/2021 & 185/22

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