Kerala High Court
Sibi Varkey 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. 360 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.548 OF 2013 OF VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
SIBI VARKEY
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O VARKEY, AGED 46 YEARS, VADAKKEPURATHAN HOUSE,
CHERANELLUR, KOOVAPPADY, KUNNATHUNADU.
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, KAKKANAD, NOW IN PAO/400,
220 KV 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 P.O. 682 030
3 ADDL.R3: STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI
4 ADDL.R4: KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB
LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR
OTHER PRESENT:
A.ARUN KUMAR,K.P.HARISH SR.GP. PRAVEEN K. JOY-R1
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.318/2022, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.360 of 2021 and 318 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. 318 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.548 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 - 683 565,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER, PIN -
683565
BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SIBY VARKY
AGED 47 YEARS, S/O VARKEY , AGED 47 YEARS ,
VADAKKEPURATHAN HOUSE , CHERANELLUR , KOOVAPPADY ,
KUNNATHNADU, PIN - 683544
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION
OF INDIA LTD. CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 017,
PIN - 673017
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI
- 682 030, PIN - 682030
4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY
CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR KSEB LTD.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
P.T.JOSE
S.ASHITHA(K/000357/2018)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.360/2021, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.360 of 2021 and 318 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.548 of 2013. The original petition was filed
by the revision petitioner in CRP No.360 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 4.86 Ares
comprised in Sy.No.101/13-2 of Koovappady Village
in Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land was cultivated
with various yielding and non- yielding trees.
CRP Nos.360 of 2021 and 318 of 2022
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.17,859/-
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.360 of 2021 and 318 of 2022
concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A7
document as well as Exts.C9 and C9(a) commission
report and sketch. The court below adopted the
land value of the property involved in Ext.A7
document. Relying on Ext.C9(a) sketch, the extent
of central corridor was held to be 5.660 cents
and that of the outer corridors, 5.735 cents
(5.660 + 0.075). 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
house is situated in the extent covered by the
corridors and has granted Rs.2,00,000/- as
compensation on that account. Similarly, taking
into account the fact that the entire petition
schedule property is affected due to the drawing
of electric lines, the court below has also
awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the
claimant. Accordingly, the claimant was found
entitled to compensation of Rs.8,79,665/-.
CRP Nos.360 of 2021 and 318 of 2022
Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the
claimant has filed CRP No.360 of 2021, whereas
the Corporation has filed CRP No.318 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 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
CRP Nos.360 of 2021 and 318 of 2022
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 outer
corridors. It is further submitted that the court
below is not justified in granting only
Rs.2,00,000/- towards injurious affection on the
house situated in the corridors and only
Rs.1,00,000/-, even after finding that the entire
petition schedule property is affected due to
drawing of 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
CRP Nos.360 of 2021 and 318 of 2022
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 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 the injurious affection on
the house and Rs.1,00,000/- for the 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
CRP Nos.360 of 2021 and 318 of 2022
cases, no other independent witnesses were
examined. Indisputably, the trees were cut and
removed in the year 2011 and 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 the neighbouring
properties. On the other hand, the court below
found the Corporation to have assessed the yield
on the basis of local inspection, enquiry and
data furnished by the Government departments. It
was therefore held that the evidence let in by
the claimant was not sufficient to discard the
contemporaneous valuation statement prepared at
the instance of 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;
CRP Nos.360 of 2021 and 318 of 2022
"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 enhanced 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
CRP Nos.360 of 2021 and 318 of 2022
by the court below in granting 40% of the land
value as compensation for the central corridor
and 20% for the outer corridors. Taking into
account the fact that the house is situated in
the extent covered by the corridors, the court
below has granted Rs.2,00,000/- towards injurious
affection on the house and also granted
Rs.1,00,000/-, finding that the entire petition
schedule property is affected due to the drawing
of electric line, which also I find to be just
and proper.
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
CRP Nos.360 of 2021 and 318 of 2022
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.
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/
