Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs P.D.Davis 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. 384 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.902 OF 2013 OF VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
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, REP.BY ITS
SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER
BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 P.D.DAVIS
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.DEVASSY, RESIDING AT PAYAMPILLY HOUSE,
PARAPPURAM P.O, KUNJOOR, ALUVA TALUK, MANJAPRA,
KERALA 683 581
2 THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA)
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE 673 017
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
OTHER PRESENT:
B.PRAMOD SC KSEB,PRAVEEN K JOY-R1
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.7/2022, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 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. 7 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.902 OF
2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
P.D. DAVIS
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. DEVASSY, PAYYAMPILLI HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT
PARAPURAM P. O., KANJOOR, ALUVA TALUK, MANJAPRA P.
O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 581.
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682030, NOW IN PAO/400, 220KV
SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P. O., PALLIKKARA, COCHIN -
682030, REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKKODE - 673 017, NOW IN THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE,
KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KAKKANAD P. O. - 682030.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.384/2021, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 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.902 of 2013. The original petition was filed
by the revision petitioner in CRP No.7 of 2022
(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 55 cents
comprised in Sy.No.181 of Ayyampuzha Village in
Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various
yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the
claimant, to facilitate drawing of the lines and
CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 of 2022
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.2,97,278/- 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
document as well as Exts.C5 and C5(a) commission
report and sketch. The Advocate Commissioner
CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 of 2022
reported that the claimant's property is situated
at a distance of 200 metres from the Panchayat
road and the Manjapra - Chully road lies at a
distance of 1.6 Km. It is also reported that the
Government LP School, Primary Health Centre, GK
Granite and Fathima Matha Church are situated
within a radius of 2 Km. The court below also
took note of the fact that while the property in
Ext.A7 document is having public road access on
two sides, the petition schedule property has no
road access on either side. Based on these
factors, the court below fixed the land value of
the claimant's property at Rs.2,02,571/- per
cent, by deducting 10% of the land value of the
property involved in Ext.A7 document. Relying on
Ext.C5(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor
was held to be 11.710 cents and that of the
outer corridors, 10.325 (10.250 + 0.075) cents.
Taking into account the fact that the remaining
property admeasuring 4 cents is also affected due
to the drawing of electric lines, the court below
CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 of 2022
has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on that
account. 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.14,67,150/-. Dissatisfied with
the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has
filed CRP No.7 of 2022, whereas the Corporation
has filed CRP No.384 of 2021 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
CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 of 2022
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 claimant's
property is situated at a distance of 200 metres
from the Panchayat road and the Manjapra-Chully
road lies at a distance of 1.6 Km. Similarly, the
Government LP School, Primary Health Centre, GK
Granite and Fathima Matha Church are situated
within a radius of 2 Km from the property.
Without considering these crucial factors, 10%
deduction was made from the land value of the
property involved in Ext.A7 document.
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
CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 of 2022
Rs.1,00,000/-, for the remaining property.
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
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.1,00,000/- towards the remaining property,
which is in no way affected.
CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 of 2022
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 one of
the connected cases, no other independent witness
was examined. The court below also took note of
the fact that the Commissioner's assessment was
based on the Mahazar, whereas the Corporation has
assessed the compensation on the basis of details
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 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
CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 of 2022
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, 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.
Based on the above factors and a comparison of
the petition schedule property with the property
CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 of 2022
involved in Ext.A7, the court below fixed the
land value at Rs.2,02,571/- per cent, viz; 10%
less than the value shown 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. The court below has granted
Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the remaining
property affected due to the drawing of electric
lines, 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
the light of the decision of this Court in V.V.
CRP Nos.384 of 2021 and 7 of 2022
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/
