Kerala High Court

Sivan vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd on 21 May, 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
    TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                        CRP NO. 355 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.355 OF
2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

            SIVAN
            AGED 49 YEARS
            S/O.RAMAN, ELLIKKAKKUDI, ELAMBAKKAPILLI, KOOVAPPADY
            VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK
            BY ADV P.T.JOSE


RESPONDENT/S:

    1       POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
            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:

            ADV.PARAMESWARAN K.JOY-R1,B.PRAMOD SC KSEB.,SR.GP
            V.TEKCHAND


        THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.04.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.173/2022, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.355 of 2021 and 173 of 2022

                                 -2-




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
    TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                         CRP NO. 173 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.355 OF 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
             S/O. RAMAN, AGED 50 YEARS, ELLIKKAKKUDI,
             ELAMBAKKAPILLI, 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
             BY ADV P.T.JOSE


         THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.04.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.355/2021, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.355 of 2021 and 173 of 2022

                                 -3-



                                ORDER

Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024

These revision petitions are filed

challenging the order passed by the Additional

District Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P.(Electricity)

No.355 of 2013. The original petition was filed

by the revision petitioner in CRP No.355 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 8.09 Ares

in Sy.No.220/11-2-4 and 7.28 Ares in

Sy.No.220/11-2-5 of Koovappady Village in

Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land was cultivated with CRP Nos.355 of 2021 and 173 of 2022

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.2,56,038/-

(2,46,054 + 9,984) 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.355 of 2021 and 173 of 2022

concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A7

document as well as Exts.C4 and C4(a) commission

report and sketch. The court below adopted the

land value of the property involved in Ext.A7

document. Relying on Ext.C4(a) sketch, the extent

of central corridor was held to be 17.072 cents

(13.367 + 2.297 + 1.408) and that of the outer

corridors, 17.049 cents (16.974 + 0.075). For

the central corridor, 40% of the land value was

granted as compensation and for outer corridors,

20% of the land value. Accordingly, the claimant

was found entitled to compensation of

Rs.17,39,947/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of

enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.355 of

2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP

No.173 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 CRP Nos.355 of 2021 and 173 of 2022

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.

5. It is further submitted that the court

below grossly erred in granting only 40% of the

land value for the central corridor and 20% for

the outer corridors. According to the learned

Counsel, considering the extent of damage

sustained and the diminution in land value

consequent to the drawing of lines, the court CRP Nos.355 of 2021 and 173 of 2022

below ought to have granted compensation as

claimed.

6. Learned Counsel for the Corporation

contended that the compensation granted towards

diminution in land value 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

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 in the absence of any supporting

material, other than the findings in the Advocate

Commissioner's report. 5. It is further submitted

that the court below grossly erred in granting CRP Nos.355 of 2021 and 173 of 2022

only 40% of the land value for the central

corridor and 20% for the outer corridors.

According to the learned Counsel, 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 the compensation granted towards

diminution in land value 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

corridors are exorbitant.

7. A careful scrutiny of the impugned order

reveals that the claim for enhancement of CRP Nos.355 of 2021 and 173 of 2022

compensation towards the value of trees cut was

rightly rejected in the absence of any supporting

material, other than the findings in the Advocate

Commissioner's report. As found by the court

below, apart from the interested testimony of a

witness, the claimant in some of the connected

cases, no other independent witness was examined.

The court below also took note of the fact that

the trees had been cut and removed in the year

2011, whereas the Commissioner inspected the

property much later. Therefore, the court below

rightly refused to accept the assessment made by

the Commissioner, which was based on an overview

of the remaining trees in the petition schedule

and neighbouring properties. On the other hand,

the Corporation had assessed the yield on the

basis of local inspection, enquiry and data

furnished by the Government departments. Hence,

it was rightly held by the court below that the

evidence let in by the claimant is not sufficient

to discard the contemporaneous valuation CRP Nos.355 of 2021 and 173 of 2022

statement prepared by the Corporation.

8. For fixing the compensation payable

towards diminution in land value, 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, in the case at hand, the compensation

was fixed after taking all the above factors into

consideration. The nature of the land, the

cultivation therein, the commercial importance of CRP Nos.355 of 2021 and 173 of 2022

the area and the manner in which the land was

affected by drawing of the lines are all seen

considered for fixing the land value as well as

the percentage of diminution. After considering

the similarities of the properties involved, the

court below adopted the land value in Ext.A7

document, which according to me, is reasonable.