Kerala High Court
George Joseph 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. 367 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.1225 OF 2014 OF
VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
GEORGE JOSEPH
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, KOZHUKKATTA HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR P.O.,
KOOVAPPADY, ERNAKULAM-683 544
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, KAKKANAD, NOW IN FAO/400,
220 KV SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKARA,
KOCHI-682 303 REP BY DEPUTY MANAGER
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., THRIKKAKARA
VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM
P.O., -682 030,
3 ADDL.R3- STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION
BUILDING, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 030
4 ADDL.R4-KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB
LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR
OTHER PRESENT:
PRAVEEN K.JOY-R1,SR.GP.V.TEKCHAND,B.PRAMOD SC ,KSEB
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.04.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.74/2022, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 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. 74 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.1225 OF 2014 OF
VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
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, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER.
BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 GEORGE JOSEPH
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O JOSEOH, KOZHUKKATTA HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR P.O,
KOOVAPPADY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683544
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., THRIKKAKKRA
VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-
682030
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 030.
4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB
LTD., VAIDHYTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.04.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.367/2021, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 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.1225 of 2014. The original petition was filed
by the revision petitioner in CRP No.367 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 7.23 Ares
comprised in Re-Sy.No.41/15 of Koovappady Village
in Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land was cultivated
with various yielding and non-yielding trees.
CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 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.54,665/-
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 allowed the claim for
enhanced compensation for the value of trees cut
by awarding 50% of the compensation already
granted by the Corporation. Thus, the claimant
was found entitled for Rs.27,332/- towards the
CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 of 2022
value of trees cut. As far as the claim for
enhanced compensation towards diminution in land
value is concerned, the court below relied on
Ext.A4 document as well as Exts.C5 and C5(a)
commission report and plan. The court below took
note of the fact that the Thottuva - Kalady road
lies at a distance of about 450 metres on the
northern side of the petition schedule property
and a pathway having a width of 2.4 metres that
starts from the claimant's property leads to the
said road. Based on these factors, the court
below fixed the land value of the claimant's
property at Rs.1,53,000/- per cent, which is
equivalent to 10% less than the land value of the
property involved in Ext.A4 document. Relying on
Ext.C5(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor
was held to be 7.215 cents and that of the outer
corridor, 10.650 cents. For the central corridor,
40% of the land value was granted as compensation
and for outer corridor, 20% of the land value.
CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 of 2022
After taking into account the fact that the
entire petition schedule property is covered by
the central and outer corridors and a portion of
the line passes across the residential building,
the court below granted Rs.5,00,000/- as
compensation on that account. Accordingly, the
claimant was found entitled to compensation of
Rs.12,67,448/- towards diminution in land value.
Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the
claimant has filed CRP No.367 of 2021, whereas
the Corporation has filed CRP No.74 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 granting only 50% of the amount
already paid as enhanced compensation for the
loss sustained due to the cutting of valuable
CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 of 2022
trees, in spite of the Advocate Commissioner
assessing and reporting the loss. It is submitted
that the Thottuva - Kalady road lies at a
distance of about 450 metres on the northern side
of the petition schedule property and a pathway
having a width of 2.4 metres that starts from the
claimant's property leads to the said road.
Without properly considering these crucial
factors, the land value of the property is fixed
as only Rs.1,53,000/- per cent.
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 the
outer corridor. It is further submitted that the
court below is not justified in granting only
Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation, even after finding
the entire petition schedule property is covered
by the corridors and a portion of the line also
passes across the residential building situated
in the property. According to the learned
CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 of 2022
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
the trees cut and 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.A4 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 corridor are exorbitant. According
to the learned Counsel, the court below grossly
erred in granting Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation
towards injurious affection on the house and for
CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 of 2022
the remaining property, which is in no way
affected.
7. The court below had awarded 50% of the
compensation already granted as additional
compensation towards the value of trees cut,
based on the Commission report as well as the
Detailed Valuation Statement. A careful scrutiny
of the impugned order reveals that the claim for
enhancement of compensation towards the value of
trees cut was rightly considered on the basis of
available evidence produced.
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
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
CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 of 2022
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, 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.A4, the court below fixed the land value at
Rs.1,53,000/- per cent, viz; 10% less than the
land value of the property involved in Ext.A4
document, which according to me, is reasonable.
Similarly, the discretion was properly exercised
by the court below in granting 40% of the land
CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 of 2022
value for the central corridor and 20% for the
outer corridor. Taking into account the fact that
the entire petition schedule property is covered
by the corridors and a portion of the line passes
across the residential building situated in the
property, the court below has granted
Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant,
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.
Jayaram v Kerala State Electricity Board [2015
(3) KHC 453]. As such, there is no illegality or
CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 of 2022
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/
