Kerala High Court

P.O.Jose 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. 109 OF 2022
     AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 562/2013 OF VI
            ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

          P.O.JOSE
          AGED 71 YEARS
          S/O.OUSEPH, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM, 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, 200KV SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM PO,
  PALLIKARA, KOCHI-682303, REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWERGRID CORPORATION OF
  INDIA LT, CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 017, NOW IN
  THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KAKKANAD, PO-
  682030.
3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
  ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682030.
OTHER PRESENT:

          SC FOR KSEB B.PREMOD; SR.GP.PREETHA K.K. GP
          SYLAJA S.L.


     THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.260/2022, THE COURT ON 16.02.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.109 & 260 of 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. 260 OF 2022
        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 562/2013 OF VI
             ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

            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       P.O JOSE
            AGED 72 YEARS
            S/O OUSEPH , PUTHUSSERRY HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM,
            MUKKANNUR, 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 ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR
            KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ., PIN - 695001
 CRP Nos.109 & 260 of 2022

                                   -3-




           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.109/2022,   THE   COURT   ON
16.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.109 & 260 of 2022

                                   -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.562 of 2013. The original

petition was filed by the revision petitioner in

CRP No.109 of 2022 (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 13.34 Ares

comprised in Sy.No.125/8 of Mukkannur Village in CRP Nos.109 & 260 of 2022

Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various

yielding and non-yielding trees. 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.33,103/- 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 CRP Nos.109 & 260 of 2022

compensation towards diminution in land value is

concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A5

document as well as Exts.C7 and C7(a) commission

report and sketch. The Advocate Commissioner

reported that claimant's property lies 500 metres

away from SNDP Junction and 1.5 Km from Tabor

Junction and SCMS College. Moreover, a Government

Hospital and a Milk Society are also seen in

close proximity to 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.C7(a) sketch, it was found that no electric

line was drawn over the claimant's property and

only the outer corridor passes through 2 cents of

the property. For outer corridor, 20% of the land

value was granted as compensation. Accordingly,

the claimant was found entitled to compensation

of Rs.72,025/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of

enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.109 of CRP Nos.109 & 260 of 2022

2022, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP

No.260 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

action for filing the original petition arose

only on payment of the initial compensation, even CRP Nos.109 & 260 of 2022

later. It is submitted that claimant's property

is situated 500 metres away from SNDP Junction

and 1.5 Km away from Tabor Junction and SCMS

College. Moreover, a Government Hospital and a

Milk Society are situated in close proximity to

the claimant's 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 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.

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.109 & 260 of 2022

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, 20% for the outer corridor is

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

commissioner inspected the property in the year CRP Nos.109 & 260 of 2022

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 purpose for which the same was meant to CRP Nos.109 & 260 of 2022

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 outer

corridor, 20% is granted, which I find to be just