Avarachan M.P. v Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v Avarachan M.P.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946** ## **CRP NO. 358 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.904 OF 2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **AVARACHAN M.P. AGED 58 YEARS S/O. PAILY PILLA, MAMBAKKATTU HOUSE, KAMMANODE, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADVS. P.T.JOSE S.ASHITHA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, KAKKANAD, NOW IN PAO/400,220 KV SUB STATION, KUMANRAPURAM P.O., PALLIKARA, KOCHI-682 303, REP BY DEPUTY MANAGER** - **2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, NOW IN KAKKANAD P.O-682 030** - **3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI682 021** - **4 KERALA STATION ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 BY ADV ROJO JOSEPH** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **GP JIBU T.S.SC FOR KSEB B.PREMOD; ADV.PRAVEEN K.JOY FOR POWERGRID** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **19.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.238/2021, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946** **CRP NO. 238 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.904 OF 2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, PALLIKKARA, COCHIN 682 030.** **BY ADV ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**AVARACHAN M.P.,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 58 YEARS**| ||**S/O. PAILY PILLA, MAMBAKKATTU HOUSE, KUMMANODE,**| ||**PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM**| ||**DT. 683 562.**| |**2**|**THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),**| ||**POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,**| ||**KOZHIKODE 673 017.**| |**3**|**THE STATE OF KERALA,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI**| ||**682 030.**| |**4**|**THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,**| ||**KSEB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**P.T.JOSE**| ||**S.ASHITHA**| **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **19.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.358/2021, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 23[rd] day of April, 2024 These revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P.(Electricity) No.904 of 2013. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.358 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 25.91 Ares in Resurvey No.514/10/3 of Pattimattam Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the claimant, to facilitate drawing CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021 -4- 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.2,10,540/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.1,05,270/- towards the value of trees cut. As far as the claim for enhanced compensation towards diminution in land CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021 -5- value is concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A5 document as well as Exts.C1 and C1(a) commission report and sketch. The court below has took note of the fact that the petition schedule property is situated at a distance of 200 metres from Perumbavoor-Puthencruz road and 150 metres from Periyar Valley road. Moreover, LP School, Anganavadi and Temple are situated on the northern side of the petition schedule property. It is also reported by the Commissioner that a road that starts from the canal bund road passes through the northern side of the petition schedule property and a lot of reputed institutions are situated within a radius of a 150 metres. Based on the said factors and also considering the fact that there is no direct public road access to the petition schedule property, the court below fixed the land value of the claimant's property at Rs.1,89,695/- per cent, by deducting 10% of the land value of the property involved in Ext.A5 document. Relying on CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021 -6- Ext.C1(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor was held to be 17.960 cents and that of the outer corridor, 37.410 cents. For the central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for the outer corridor, 20% of the land value. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.27,82,065/- towards diminution in land value. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.358 of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.238 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.Rojo Joseph 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 trees, in spite of the Advocate Commissioner CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021 **==> picture [19 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** assessing and reporting the loss. It is submitted that the petition schedule property is situated at a distance of 200 metres from PerumbavoorPuthencruz road and 150 metres from Periyar Valley road. Moreover, LP School, Anganavadi and Temple are situated on the northern side of the petition schedule property. It is also reported by the Commissioner that a road that starts from the canal bund road passes through the northern side of the petition schedule property and a lot of reputed institutions are situated within a radius of a 150 metres. Without properly considering these crucial factors, 10% deduction was made from the value of the property involved in Ext.A5 document. 5. It is submitted that the court below grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land value fixed for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridor. It is further submitted that the court below is not justified in refusing to grant anything towards the remaining property, CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021 **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** which is also affected due to the drawing of electric lines. 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, compensation towards the value of trees cut and 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.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 corridor are exorbitant. 7. The court below had awarded 50% of the compensation already granted as additional compensation, based on the Commission report as CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021 -9- 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. As far as the diminution in land value is concerned, 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 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 CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021 -10- seen that the compensation was enhanced 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.A5, the court below has fixed the land value at Rs.1,89,695/- per cent, viz, 10% less than the value shown in Ext.A5 document, which according to me, is reasonable. Similarly, 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 corridor. The court below has also rightly rejected the claim towards the diminution of land value for the remaining property, on finding that the electric lines were drawn across the extreme southern side of the property without affecting the remaining CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021 **==> picture [25 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** portion of the petition schedule property. 9. The contention of the Corporation that the Government having fixed the land 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 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 CRP Nos.358 of 2021 and 238 of 2021 **==> picture [25 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** 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/