Kerala High Court

Suni Babu 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. 370 OF 2021
        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 623/2013 OF VI
                ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

               SUNI BABU
               AGED 50 YEARS
               EETTUNGAPADI, CHERANELLOOR, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE,
               KUNNATHUNAD TALUK 683 544
               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 TAHSILDAR (L.A.)
               POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA, CHEVARAMBALAM,
               KOZHIKODE, NOW NEAR CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 030
OTHER PRESENT:

               GP SYLAJA S.L.


        THIS    CIVIL   REVISION   PETITION   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY
HEARD ON 20.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.166/2022, THE COURT
ON 16.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.370/21 & 166/22

                                  -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. 166 OF 2022
        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 623/2013 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
            - 683 565, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL
            MANAGER, PIN - 683565
            BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI

RESPONDENT/S:

    1       SUNI BABU
            W/O BABU, AGED 43 YEARS, EETTUNGAPADI,
            CHERANELLOR, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD
            TALUK, PIN - 683544
    2       THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
            POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
            CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 017, PIN - 673017
            BY ADV P.T.JOSE


        THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.370/2021, THE COURT ON 16.02.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.370/21 & 166/22

                                   -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.623 of 2013. The original

petition was filed by the revision petitioner in

CRP No.370 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 46 Ares in

Sy.No.40/3 of Koovappady Village in Kunnathunadu

Taluk. The land was cultivated with various

yielding and non-yielding trees. According to

the claimant, to facilitate drawing of the lines CRP Nos.370/21 & 166/22

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.7,715/- 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

concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A7

document as well as Exts.C16 and C16(a)

commission report and sketch. Relying on CRP Nos.370/21 & 166/22

Ext.C16(a) sketch, it was found that no electric

line was drawn over the claimant's property and

only the outer corridor passes through 2.200

cents of claimant's property. For outer corridor,

20% of the land value was granted as

compensation. Accordingly, the claimant was

found entitled to compensation of Rs.74,773/-.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the

claimant has filed CRP No.370 of 2021, whereas

the Corporation has filed CRP No.166 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 CRP Nos.370/21 & 166/22

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 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

amount. The court below also erred in relying on

Ext.A7 for fixing the land value of the CRP Nos.370/21 & 166/22

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 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 CRP Nos.370/21 & 166/22

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 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, CRP Nos.370/21 & 166/22

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 outer corridor, 20% is

granted, which I find to be just and proper. As

such, there is no illegality or material

irregularity in the impugned order, warranting

intervention by this Court in exercise of the