Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India vs M P Balakrishnan 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. 376 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.545 OF
2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
M.P. BALAKRISHNAN
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.PARAN, MONDOLI HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM PO., KARUKUTTY
ALUVA
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.)
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:
K.P.HARISHSR.GP.A.ARUN KUMAR SC,PRAVEEN K,JOY.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.313/2022, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 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. 313 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.545 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 M P BALAKRISHNAN
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O PARAN, MUNDOLI HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM PO, KARUKUTTY,
ALUVA, PIN - 683576
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.376/2021, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 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.545 of 2013. The original petition was filed
by the revision petitioner in CRP No.376 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 16.90 Ares
in Sy.Nos.198/8 and 198/12 of Karukutty Village
in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with
various yielding and non-yielding trees.
CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 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.2,03,968/-
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.376 of 2021 and 313 of 2022
document as well as Exts.C1 and C1(a) commission
report and plan. The Advocate Commissioner
reported that the claimant's property is situated
in a residential area. It is also reported that
a canal road having width of 3-4 metres passes
through the southern side of the property.
Similarly, the Palissery Higher Secondary School
and Government Hospital are situated at a
distance of half a kilometre from the petition
schedule property. Moreover, St.George Church
and Naipunniya Public School are situated at a
distance of 750 metres and about 1 Km,
respectively. The court below also took note of
the fact that while the property in Ext.A5
document is having public road access on two
sides, a canal road passes through the southern
side of the petition schedule property. Based on
the said factors, the court below fixed the land
value of the claimant's property at Rs.1,80,063/-
per cent, by deducting 20% of the land value of
the property involved in Ext.A5 document. Relying
CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 of 2022
on Ext.C1(a) plan, the extent of central corridor
was held to be 9.068 cents (6.425 + 2.643) and
that of the outer corridors, 16.505 cents (9.760
+ 6.745). For the central corridor, 40% of the
land value was granted as compensation and for
outer corridors, 20% of the land value.
Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to
compensation of Rs.12,47,511/-. Dissatisfied with
the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has
filed CRP No.376 of 2021, whereas the Corporation
has filed CRP No.313 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
CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 of 2022
loss. It is submitted that the the claimant's
property is situated in a residential area and a
canal road having width of 3-4 metres passes
through the southern side of the property.
Similarly, the Palissery Higher Secondary School
and Government Hospital are situated at a
distance of half a kilometre from the petition
schedule property. Moreover, St.George Church
and Naipunniya Public School are situated at a
distance of 750 metres and about 1 Km,
respectively. Without considering these crucial
factors, 20% 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 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
CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 of 2022
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.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 the land value granted
for the central corridor and 20% for the outer
corridors 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
CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 of 2022
the claimant, 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 neighbouring
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
CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 of 2022
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 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 fixed the land value at
Rs.1,80,063/- per cent, viz; 20% less than the
CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 of 2022
value shown in Ext.A5 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.
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
CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 of 2022
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/
