Kerala High Court

T.K.Muraleedharan 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. 356 OF 2021
        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 549/2013 OF VI
                ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

    1          T.K.MURALEEDHARAN
               AGED 71 YEARS
               X
    2          T.K.MURALEEDHARAN
               AGED 71 YEARS
               S/O.NARAYANNIAMMA, VADAKKINIMARATH HOUSE,
               CHERANELLUR, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU
               TALUK
               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:

               GP SYLAJA S.L.; SC FOR KSEB B.PREMOD
        THIS    CIVIL   REVISION   PETITION   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY
HEARD ON 20.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.188/2022, THE COURT
ON 16.2.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.356/2021 & 188/22

                                -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. 188 OF 2022
        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 549/2013 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       T K MURALEDHARAN
            S/O NARAYANIAMMA, AGED 72 YEARS, VADAKKININARATH
            HOUSE, CHERANELLOR, KOOVAPADI VILLAGE ,
            KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
            683544
    2       THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
            POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
            CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017
            BY ADV P.T.JOSE


        THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.356/2021, THE COURT ON 16.2.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.356/2021 & 188/22

                            -3-
 CRP Nos.356/2021 & 188/22

                                   -4-



                                  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.549 of 2013. The original

petition was filed by the revision petitioner in

CRP No.356 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 14.15 Ares

in Sy.Nos.38/16-2 and 44/8-2 of Koovappady

Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land was

cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding CRP Nos.356/2021 & 188/22

trees. According to the claimant, 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 claimant, only an amount of

Rs.27,909/- 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.356/2021 & 188/22

concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A7

document as well as Exts.C10 and C10(a)

commission report and sketch. Relying on

Ext.C10(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor

was held to be 0.915 cents and of the outer

corridor was held to be 7.067 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.3,02,391/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of

enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.356 of

2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP

No.188 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 CRP Nos.356/2021 & 188/22

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

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 CRP Nos.356/2021 & 188/22

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.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 CRP Nos.356/2021 & 188/22

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 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 CRP Nos.356/2021 & 188/22

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,

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 corridor, 20% is granted, which I find

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

illegality or material irregularity in the