Kerala High Court
Santhosh 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. 390 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN OPELE NO.444 OF 2013 OF VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
SANTHOSH
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.NEELAKANDHANNAIR, MADAMPALLI HOUSE, CHERANATTU,
KOOVAPPADY, PIN - 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.)
POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE, NOW IN KAKKANAD, PIN -682 030, NEAR CIVIL
STATION.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI
- 682 021.
4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB
LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR
OTHER PRESENT:
K.P.HARISH SR.G.P,A.ARUN KUMAR SC,PRAVEEN K.JOY SC
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.314/2022, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.390/2021 & 314/2022
-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. 314 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.444 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 SANTHOSH
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. NEELAKANDAN NAIR, MADAMPALLI HOUSE, CHERANATTU,
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
19.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.390/2021, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.390/2021 & 314/2022
-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.444 of 2013. The original petition was filed
by the revision petitioner in CRP No.390 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 18.20
Ares comprised in Sy.No.38/11 of Koovappady
Village in Kunathunadu Taluk. The land was
cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding
CRP Nos.390/2021 & 314/2022
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.2,39,847/- 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.390/2021 & 314/2022
document as well as Exts.C6 and C6(a) commission
report and sketch. The court below adopted the
land value of the property involved in Ext.A7
document. Relying on Ext.C6(a) sketch, the extent
of central corridor was held to be 13.665 cents
and that of the outer corridors, 12.555 cents
(12.355 + 0.200). For the central corridor, 40%
of the land value was granted as compensation and
for outer corridors, 20% of the land value. The
court below also took note of the fact that a
major portion of the house is situated in the
extent covered by the central corridor and has
granted Rs.2,00,000/- on that account.
Similarly, Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded for the
remaining property admeasuring 5.630 cents.
Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to
compensation of Rs.16,55,610/-. Dissatisfied
with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has
filed CRP No.390 of 2021, whereas the Corporation
has filed CRP No.314 of 2022 contending that the
CRP Nos.390/2021 & 314/2022
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
later.
5. It is submitted that the court below
grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land
CRP Nos.390/2021 & 314/2022
value for the central corridor and 20% for outer
corridors. It is further submitted that the
court below is not justified in granting
Rs.2,00,000/- towards injurious affection on the
house situated under the central corridor and
Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the remaining
property rendered useless due to drawing of the
electric lines. 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
CRP Nos.390/2021 & 314/2022
conducting agricultural activities and putting up
small structures, 40% of land value granted for
central corridor and 20% for the outer corridors
are exorbitant. According to the learned Counsel,
the court below grossly erred in granting
Rs.2,00,000/- towards injurious affection on the
house and Rs.1,00,000/- for the remaining
property, which is in no way affected.
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. Indisputably, 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
CRP Nos.390/2021 & 314/2022
accept the assessment made by the Commissioner,
which was based on an overview of the remaining
trees standing 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
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
CRP Nos.390/2021 & 314/2022
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
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.
The court below adopted the land value in Ext.A7
document, which according 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 corridors. I am of the
definite opinion that the court below is
justified in granting Rs.2,00,000/- towards
CRP Nos.390/2021 & 314/2022
injurious affection on the house situated in the
extent covered by the central corridor and
Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the remaining
property.
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 Code of
Civil Procedure.
CRP Nos.390/2021 & 314/2022
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/
