Kerala High Court

Unnikrishnan P.M 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. 364 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.547 OF 2013 OF VI
                ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

            UNNIKRISHNAN P.M
            AGED 59 YEARS
            S/O. MADHAVAGURUKKAL PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,
            CHERANALLOR, KOOVAPADI VILLAGE , KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
            ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683544
            BY ADV P.T.JOSE


RESPONDENT/S:

    1       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
    2       THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.R), POWER GRID CORPORATION
            OF INDIA LTD.
            CHEVERAMBALAM,KOZHIKODE, NOW IN KAKKANAD P.O, PIN -
            682030
    3       STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR
            ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682021
    4       KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY
            CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
            KSEB LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
            BY ADVS.
            R.HARISHANKAR
            SHRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA
            LIMITED

OTHER PRESENT:
          K.A.HARISH SR. GP.,A,ARUN KUMAR SC KSEB,PRAVEEN
          K.JOY R1

        THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.200/2022, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.364 of 2021 and 200 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. 200 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.547 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       UNNIKRISHNAN P.M
             AGED 59 YEARS
             S/O. MADHAVAGURUKKAL PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,
             CHERANALLOR, KOOVAPADI VILLAGE , KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
             ERNAKULAM, 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
19.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.364/2021, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP Nos.364 of 2021 and 200 of 2022

                                 -3-
 CRP Nos.364 of 2021 and 200 of 2022

                                 -4-
 CRP Nos.364 of 2021 and 200 of 2022

                                 -5-




                              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.547 of 2013. The original petition was filed

by the revision petitioner in CRP No.364 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 19 Ares in

Sy.No.40/15 of Koovappady Village in Kunnathunadu

Taluk. The land was cultivated with various CRP Nos.364 of 2021 and 200 of 2022

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.1,14,523/- 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 CRP Nos.364 of 2021 and 200 of 2022

document as well as Exts.C8 and C8(a) commission

report and sketch. The court below adopted the

land value of the property involved in Ext.A7

document. Relying on Ext.C8(a) sketch, the extent

of central corridor was held to be 15.616 cents

and that of the outer corridors, 15.62 cents

(15.320 + 0.300). 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.15,92,405/-. Dissatisfied with

the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has

filed CRP No.364 of 2021, whereas the Corporation

has filed CRP No.200 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 CRP Nos.364 of 2021 and 200 of 2022

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 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.

CRP Nos.364 of 2021 and 200 of 2022

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. 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. CRP Nos.364 of 2021 and 200 of 2022

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

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 CRP Nos.364 of 2021 and 200 of 2022

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

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. CRP Nos.364 of 2021 and 200 of 2022