Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India vs Suresh P A 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. 372 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.587 OF 2013 OF VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
SURESH P A
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.AYYAPPANKUTTY, PEECHAMPILLI HOUSE,
ELABAKKAPPILLI, AYMURIKKARA, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, 683 544
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
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.)
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA, CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE, NOW NEAR CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 030
3 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 030
4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REP.BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.K.P.HARISH,A.ARUN KUMAR SC,KSEB.,PRAVEEN K.JOY
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.165/2022, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.372 of 2021 and 165 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. 165 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.587 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 SURESH P A
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O AYYAPPANKUTTY, AGED 47 YEARS, PEECHAMPILLY
HOUSE,ELAMBAKKAPILLI, AYMURIKKARA, KOOVAPPADY
VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, 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
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR KSEB
LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, PIN - 695001
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.372/2021, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.372 of 2021 and 165 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.587 of 2013. The original petition was filed
by the revision petitioner in CRP No.372 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 4.13 Ares
in Sy.No.220/2 of Koovappady Village in
Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land was cultivated with
various yielding and non-yielding trees.
CRP Nos.372 of 2021 and 165 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.25,500/-
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.372 of 2021 and 165 of 2022
document as well as Exts.C13 and C13(a)
commission report and sketch. The court below
adopted the land value in Ext.A7 document.
Relying on Ext.C13(a) sketch, the extent of
central corridor was held to be 7.165 cents and
that of the outer corridor, 3.040 cents. The
court below also took note of the fact that a
house is situated in the extent covered by the
central corridor and has granted Rs.2,00,000/- as
compensation on that account. For the central
corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as
compensation and for outer corridor, 20% of the
land value. Since it was found that a small
portion of land is left as remaining property and
the entire property is affected by the drawing of
electric lines, the court below has also granted
Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant. Accordingly, the
claimant was found entitled to compensation of
Rs.8,90,371/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of
enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.372 of
2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP
CRP Nos.372 of 2021 and 165 of 2022
No.165 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 the initial compensation, even
later.
5. It is submitted that the court below
CRP Nos.372 of 2021 and 165 of 2022
grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land
value for the central corridor and 20% for the
outer corridor. It is further submitted that the
court below is not justified in granting only
Rs.2,00,000/- towards the injurious affection on
house situated in the extent covered by central
corridor and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation even
after finding the entire property is affected due
to the 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
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
CRP Nos.372 of 2021 and 165 of 2022
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
corridor are exorbitant. According to the learned
Counsel, the court below grossly erred in
granting Rs.2,00,00/- 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 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
CRP Nos.372 of 2021 and 165 of 2022
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 the 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.372 of 2021 and 165 of 2022
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.
For the central corridor, 40% of the land value
was granted as compensation and for the outer
CRP Nos.372 of 2021 and 165 of 2022
corridor, 20% of the land value, which also I
find to be just and proper. Similarly, the
discretion was properly exercised by the court
below in granting Rs.2,00,000/- towards injurious
affection on the house situated in the extent
covered by the central corridor and Rs.1,00,000/-
after finding that a small portion of land is
left as remaining property as well as the entire
property is affected due to the drawing of
electric lines.
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
CRP Nos.372 of 2021 and 165 of 2022
(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.
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. The entire
enhanced compensation shall be paid to the
claimant within three months of receipt of a copy
of this order.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
