Kerala High Court

Gopinathan Nair 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. 405 OF 2021

     AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 632/2013 OF VI
           ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

       GOPINATHAN NAIR
       AGED 56 YEARS
       ILLIKATHARA HOUSE,MATTATHURKUNNU P.O., MATTATHUR
       VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK - 680 684 REP. BY POWER OF
       ATTORNEY HOLDER, HIS WIFE SOJA, AGED 56 YEARS.

       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
       SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKARA, KOCHI - 682
       303, REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.

2      THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.)
       POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., THRIKKKARA
       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:

       SC FOR KSEB A. ARUNKUMAR; SR.GP.K.P.HARISH

     THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 04.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.140/2023, THE COURT
ON 16.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.405/21 & 140/23

                                  -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. 140 OF 2023
        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 632/2013 OF VI
             ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

            POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA
            POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
            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       GOPINATHAN NAIR
            ILLIKKATHARA HOUSE, MATTATHURKUNNU P.O ,
            MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. REP. BY
            POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, HIS WIFE SOJA, PIN -
            680684
    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
    5       SOJA K.K ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )
            W/O. LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, AGED 58 YEARS,
            ELLIKKATHARA, KAVANADU, MATTATHUR VILLAGE,
 CRP Nos.405/21 & 140/23

                                -3-


            MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR ( SOUGHT TO BE
            IMPLEADED )
    6       DEVIKA SANGHAMITHRA ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )
            D/O LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, AGED 31 YEARS,
            ELLIKKATHARA, KAVANADU, MATTATHUR VILLAGE,
            MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR ( SOUGHT TO BE
            IMPLEADED )
            BY ADV P.T.JOSE



     THIS    CIVIL   REVISION   PETITION   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY
HEARD ON 04.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.405/2021, THE COURT
ON 16.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.405/21 & 140/23

                                   -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.632 of 2013. The original

petition was filed by the revision petitioner in

CRP No.405 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 55 cents

comprised in Sy.No.1492/1 of Mattathur Village in

Mukundapuram Taluk. The land was cultivated with

various yielding and non-yielding trees. CRP Nos.405/21 & 140/23

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.61,133/-

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.405/21 & 140/23

concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A5

document as well as Exts.C5 and C5(a) commission

report and plan. The Advocate Commissioner

reported that a double-storied house is situated

in the northern side of the claimant's property

which lies 750 metres away from the Vellappady

Junction and is in close proximity to important

places of worship and pilgrim centres. Based on

these factors, the court below fixed the land

value of the claimant's property by deducting 10%

of the value shown in Ext.A5 property. Relying on

Ext.C5(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor

was held to be 18.115 cents and of the outer

corridors, 17.743 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 claimant was

found entitled to compensation of Rs.21,86,672/-.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the

claimant has filed CRP No.405 of 2021, whereas CRP Nos.405/21 & 140/23

the Corporation has filed CRP No.140 of 2023

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

action for filing the original petition arose

only on payment of the initial compensation, even

later. It is submitted that the claimant's CRP Nos.405/21 & 140/23

property is situated at the eastern side of

Vellappady-Kavanadu road and only 750 metres away

from the Vellappady junction. Moreover, the

Kanakamala pilgrim centre is just 3 kms away from

the property and Kodakara junction, only 2.5 Kms

away. Without considering these crucial factors,

10% 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 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.

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 CRP Nos.405/21 & 140/23

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

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

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 CRP Nos.405/21 & 140/23

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 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 CRP Nos.405/21 & 140/23

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 10%

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