Kerala High Court

Suresh 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. 121 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.121 OF
2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

    1        SURESH
             AGED 59 YEARS
             S/O K A.KUTTAPPAN, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM,
             KARUKUTTY, ANGAMALY.
    2        KARTHIYAYINI
             AGED 79 YEARS
             W/O K A KUTTAPPAN, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM,
             KARUKUTTY, ANGAMALY.
    3        RAJI
             AGED 53 YEARS
             D/O K A KUTTAPPAN, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM,
             KARUKUTTY, ANGAMALY.
             BY ADV P.T.JOSE


RESPONDENT/S:

    1        POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
             CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE,
             MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030. NOW IN
             PAO/400,220KV SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P O,
             PALLIKARA, KOCHI-682303, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY
             MANAGER.
    2        THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
             POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CHEVARAMBALAM,
             KOZHIKODE-673017, NOW IN THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE,
             KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KAKKANAD P O, PIN-682030.

OTHER PRESENT:

             PRAVEEN K.JOY-R1,A.ARUN KUMAR SC


        THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON28.02.2024,     THE   COURT   ON   21.05.2024    DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
 CRP No.121 of 2022

                                -2-



                             ORDER

Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024

This revision petition is filed challenging

the order passed by the Additional District

Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P.(Electricity) No.121

of 2013. The original petition was filed by the

revision petitioners (hereinafter called 'the

claimants'), being dissatisfied with the

compensation awarded towards the damage and loss

sustained due to the drawing of 400 KV lines

across their property by the Power Grid

Corporation of India Ltd (hereinafter called 'the

Corporation'). The essential facts are as under;

The claimants are in ownership and possession

of landed property having an extent of 26 cents

comprised in Sy.No.190/1 of Karukutty Village in

Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various

yielding and non-yielding trees. According to

the claimants, to facilitate drawing of the lines

and smooth transmission of power, large number of

trees were cut from their 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 claimants, only Rs.1,16,898/- 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

document as well as Exts.C13 and C13(a)

commission report and sketch. The Advocate

Commissioner reported that the petition schedule

property is situated at a distance of 400 metres

from the Government Higher Secondary School and

Government Hospital. It is also reported that

the petition schedule property lies at a distance

of 750 metres from St.George Church and 1 Km from

Naipunniya Public School. The court below also

took note of the fact that the petition schedule

property is situated at a distance of 100 metres

from the Karukutty Palissery Munnoorpilly Road,

which is a bus route and a canal road passes

through the southern side of the property. Based

on the said factors, the court below fixed the

land value of the petition schedule property at

Rs.1,80,063/- per cent, by deducting 20% of the

value shown in Ext.A5 document. Relying on

Ext.C13(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor

was held to be 3.953 cents and that of the outer

corridors, 5.165 cents (2.595+2.570). For the

central corridor, 40% of the land value was

granted as compensation and for outer corridors,

20% of the land value. Accordingly, the

claimants were found entitled to compensation of

Rs.4,70,720/-.

3. Heard Adv.P.T.Jose for the claimants

and Adv.Millu Dandapani for the Corporation.

4. Learned Counsel for the claimants

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. It is submitted that the petition schedule

property is situated at a distance of 400 metres

from the Government Higher Secondary School and

Government Hospital. Similarly, the property lies

at a distance of 750 metres from St.George Church

and 1 Km from Naipunniya Public School.

Moreover, the petition schedule property is

situated at a distance of 100 metres from the

Karukutty Palissery Munnoorpilly Road, which is a

bus route and a canal road passes through the

southern side of the property. Without

considering these crucial factors, 20% deduction

was made from the 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 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 even otherwise

exorbitant and the drawing of electric lines does

not prohibit the landowners from conducting

agricultural activities and putting up small

structures.

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.

It is also not in dispute that the trees were cut

in the year 2011, whereas the Commissioner

inspected the property in the year 2015 and

assessed the value of the trees based on an

overview of the trees standing in the nearby

properties. Such comparison, having no scientific

basis, is not sufficient to discard the

contemporaneous valuation statement prepared by

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;

"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 the compensation was enhanced after

taking all the above factors into consideration.

The nature of the land, the cultivation therein

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

deducted 20% of the land value of the property in

Ext.A5 document, which according to me, is