Kerala High Court
V.V.Jose vs Power Grid Corporation Of India on 22 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2024 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1946
CRP NO. 403 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.263 OF 2015 OF VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
1 V.V.JOSE
AGED 69 YEARS
VARTEETH, VAZHAKALA HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM P.O.,
PALISSERY, KARUKKUTTY VILLAGE, ANGAMALY - 683 576.
2 KOCHUTHRESIA JOSE
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O.V.V.JOSE, VAHZKALA HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM P.O.,
PALISSERY, KARUKKUTTY VILLAGE, ANGAMALY - 683 576.
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., PALLIKKARA,
KOCHI - 682 303 REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.)
POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE, NOW IN KAKKANAD P.O. - 682 030.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI
- 682 030.
4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB
LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR
OTHER PRESENT:
SC FOR KSEB B.PREMOD; SR.GP.V.TEKCHAND
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.95/2022, THE COURT ON 22.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022
-2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2024 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1946
CRP NO. 95 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 16.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.263 OF
2015 OF DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, REP. BY ITS
SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE,
MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN -682 030, PIN -
682030
BY ADV E.M.MURUGAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 V V JOSE
AGED 75 YEARS
VAZHAKKALA HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM.P.O, PALLISSERY,
KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ANGAMALY, PIN - 683576
2 KOCHUTHRESIA
AGED 68 YEARS
VAZHAKKALA HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM.P.O, PALLISSERY,
KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ANGAMALY, PIN - 683576
3 SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA)
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., THRIKKAKARA
VILLAGE, KANAYANOOR TALUK, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN
- 682030
4 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682030
5 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KSEB LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADV P.T.JOSE
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.403/2021, THE COURT ON 22.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022
-3-
ORDER
Dated this the 22nd 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.263 of 2015. The original petition was filed
by the revision petitioners in CRP No.403 of 2021
(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 a total extent of 32.10
Ares made up of 16 Ares in Re-Sy.No.286/4, 13.10
Ares in Re-Sy.No.286/3 and 3 Ares in Re-
Sy.No.271/3 of Karukutty Village in Aluva Taluk.
CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022
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 an amount of Rs.2,57,306/- (Rs.2,47,209/- +
Rs.10,097/-) was paid as compensation towards the
value of trees cut and a meagre sum of
Rs.12,317/- was paid for the tower footing area.
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
CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022
compensation towards diminution in land value is
concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A14
document as well as Exts.C1 and C1(a) commission
report and plan. The Advocate Commissioner
reported that a 3.1 metres wide pathway leads to
the petition schedule property from the canal
road. It was also reported that the Pallissery
Higher Secondary School and Government Hospital
are situated at a distance of 150 metres from the
property. Similarly, St. George Church is at a
distance of 400 metres and Naipunya Public School
is about 1.5 Km away.
3. The court below found that, despite the
proximity, the petition schedule property and the
property involved in Ext.A14 document are
situated in different villages, ie; Karukutty and
Ayyampuzha Villages. The court below also took
note of the fact that, while the property in
Ext.A14 document is having public road access on
two sides, the petition schedule property is not
CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022
having direct access to public roads on any side.
Based on these factors, the court below fixed the
land value of the claimants' property at
Rs.1,80,063/- per cent, by deducting 20% of the
land value of the property involved in Ext.A14
document. Relying on Ext.C1(a) plan, the extent
of central corridor was held to be 27.952 cents
and that of the outer corridors, 31.01 cents
(20.31+10.700). Accordingly, an area admeasuring
10.950 cents lies on the north-western corner and
another extent of 1.530 cents lies on the north-
eastern corner in triangular shape were held to
be the remaining properties, marked as 'D' and
'E' respectively in the Commissioner's plan. For
the 'D' marked portion of land, 5% of the land
value was granted as compensation and for the 'E'
marked area, 10% of the land value. Similarly,
for the central corridor, 40% of the land value
was granted as compensation and for the outer
corridors, 20% of the land value. As only
CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022
Rs.12,317/- was paid towards the tower footing
area admeasuring 7.413 cents, the court below
granted compensation for the entire area at the
rate of Rs.1,80,063/- per cent and fixed the
final payable amount after deducting the amount
already paid. Accordingly, the claimants were
found entitled to the enhanced compensation of
Rs.45,78,620/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of
enhancement, the claimants have filed CRP No.403
of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP
No.95 of 2022 contending that the enhancement
ordered is far in excess of the actual damage
sustained.
4. Heard Adv.P.T.Jose for the claimants and
Adv.E.M.Murugan for the Corporation.
5. 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
CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022
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 was 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 a 3.1 metres wide
pathway leads to the petition schedule property
from the canal road. It is also submitted that
the Pallissery Higher Secondary School and
Government Hospital are situated at a distance of
150 metres from the property. Similarly, St.
George Church is at a distance of 400 metres and
Naipunya Public School is about 1.5 Km away.
Without considering these crucial factors, 20%
deduction was made from the land value of the
property involved in Ext.A14 document.
CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022
6. 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. Likewise, the court below
was not justified in granting only 10% of the
land value as compensation for 1.530 cents and 5%
of the land value for 10.95 cents, even after
finding the said portions to have been adversely
affected by 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.
7. Learned Counsel for the Corporation
contended that the compensation granted towards
diminution in land value granted is exorbitant
and there is no rationale in granting 9% interest
on that amount. The court below also erred in
relying on Ext.A14 for fixing the land value of
CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022
the claimants' property. As the drawing of
electric lines does not prohibit the landowners
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. According
to the learned Counsel, the court below grossly
erred in granting 10% of the land value as
compensation for 1.530 cents and 5% of the land
value for 10.95 cents, which are in no way
affected.
8. 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. The court
below further noted that the petition schedule
property was inspected by the Commissioner even
after the trees were cut and removed. Therefore,
CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022
the court below rightly refused to accept the
assessment made by the Commissioner, which was
based on an overview of the trees remaining in
the petition schedule and nearby properties.
Hence, it was rightly held by the court below
that the evidence let in by the claimants were
not sufficient to discard the contemporaneous
valuation statement prepared by the Corporation.
9. 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
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
CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022
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.A14,
the court below fixed the land value at
Rs.1,80,063/- per cent, viz; 20% less than the
value shown in Ext.A14 document, which according
to me, is reasonable. For the central corridor,
40% of the land value was granted as compensation
and for the outer corridors, 20% of the land
value, which also I find to be just and proper.
CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022
Similarly, the discretion vested with it was
properly exercised by the court below in granting
compensation at the rate of Rs.1,80,063/- per
cent for the extent covered by the tower, since
that portion cannot be utilised for any other
purpose. The court below was justified in
granting 10% of the land value as compensation
for 1.530 cents and 5% of the land value for
10.95 cents, on finding that the said remaining
extent of land are also adversely affected.
10. The contention of the Corporation 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
of the revisional power under Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022
For the aforementioned reasons, the civil
revision petitions filed by the claimants 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 claimants on their
filing appropriate application. The entire
enhanced compensation shall be paid to the
claimants within three months of receipt of a
copy of this order.
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
