Kerala High Court
C.A Vinod vs Power Grid Corporation Of India 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. 396 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.15 OF 2014 OF VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
C.A VINOD
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.AYYAPPANKUTTY, CHEMMANDAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NANDIPURAM VILLAGE, NANDIPURAM P.O., MUKUNDAPURAL
TALUK - 680 312.
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682 020 NOW IN PAO/400, 220KV
SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKARA, KOCHI - 682
33 REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,THRIKKAKARA
VILLAE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KAKKANAD P.O. - 682 030.
OTHER PRESENT:
K.P.HARISH SR.GP,PRAVEEN K.JOY R1
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 19.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.105/2023, THE COURT ON
21.05.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023
-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. 105 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.15 OF
2014 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 C.A VINOD
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O AYYAPPANKUTTY, CHEMMANDAPARAMBILHOUSE,NANDIPURAM
VILLAGE, NANDIPURAM P.O,MUNKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 627891
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.396/2021, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023
-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.15 of 2014. The original petition was filed by
the revision petitioner in CRP No.396 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 31 cents
in Sy.No.1362/04 of Nandipuram Village in
Mukundapuram Taluk. The land was cultivated with
various yielding and non-yielding trees.
CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023
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.1,49,509/-
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.A5
CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023
document as well as Exts.C6 and C6(a) commission
report and sketch. The Advocate Commissioner
reported that the claimant's property is situated
on the eastern side of the Nandipuram Village and
the Kodakara Vellarapilly road, which is a bus
route, a UP School and a temple are situated at a
distance of 1.5 Km from the property. It is also
reported that the Kodakara Government Hospital is
situated at a distance of 3 Km and Government
School is at a distance of 2 Km from the petition
schedule property. Similarly, a Church is
situated at a distance of 750 metres and two
temples within half a kilometre. Moreover,
Kurumaly river is on the southern side of the
property. Based on the said factors, the court
below fixed the land value of the claimant's
property at Rs.2,02,571/- per cent, by deducting
10% of land value shown in Ext.A5 document.
Relying on Ext.C6(a) sketch, the extent of
central corridor was held to be 1.85 cents and
that of the outer corridor, 8.425 cents. For the
CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023
central corridor, 40% of the land value was
granted as compensation and for outer corridor,
20% of the land value. Accordingly, the claimant
was found entitled to compensation of
Rs.4,37,350/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of
enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.396 of
2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP
No.105 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. It is submitted that the the claimant's
property is situated on the eastern side of the
Nandipuram Village and the Kodakara Vellarapilly
CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023
road, which is a bus route, a UP School and a
temple are situated at a distance of 1.5 Km from
the property. It is also submitted that the
Kodakara Government Hospital is situated at a
distance of 3 Km and Government School is at a
distance of 2 Km from the petition schedule
property. Similarly, a Church is situated at a
distance of 750 metres and two temples within
half a kilometre. Moreover, Kurumaly river is on
the southern side of the property. Without
considering these crucial factors, 10% deduction
was made from the land value of the property
involved in Ext.A5 document.
5. It is further submitted that the court
below grossly erred in granting only 40% of the
land value as compensation for the central
corridor and 20% of the outer corridor. 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
CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023
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.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 land value granted for
central corridor and 20% for the outer corridor
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
CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023
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 in the year 2015. 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 nearby properties. 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
electricity line laid thereover, the
extent of the line thereon as also the
fact as to whether the high voltage line
CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023
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. Based on the above
factors and a comparison of the petition schedule
property with the property involved in Ext.A5,
the court below has fixed the land value at
Rs.2,02,571/- per cent, viz; 10% less than the
value shown in Ext.A5 document, which according
CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023
to me, is reasonable. Similarly, the discretion
was properly exercised by the court below in
granting 40% of the land value as compensation
for the central corridor and 20% for the outer
corridor.
9. The contention of the Corporation that
the Government having fixed the fair value, the
court below could not have fixed a higher value
is liable to be rejected since, while assessing
the damage sustained and fixing the compensation,
the court is not bound by the guidelines/orders
issued by the Government. The contention that
the court below committed an illegality in
awarding 9% interest cannot also be sustained in
the light of the decision of this Court in V.V.
Jayaram v Kerala State Electricity Board [2015
(3) KHC 453]. As such, there is no illegality or
material irregularity in the impugned order,
warranting intervention by this Court in exercise
of the revisional power under Section 115 of the
CRP Nos.396 of 2021 and 105 of 2023
Code of Civil Procedure.
For the aforementioned reasons, the civil
revision petitions filed by the claimant as well
as the Corporation are dismissed. The enhanced
compensation fixed by the court below shall be
paid within three months of receipt of a copy of
this order. If any amount is deposited pursuant
to the order of this Court or otherwise, the same
shall forthwith be released to the claimant on
his filing appropriate application.
sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
