Binu Xavier and Kochuthressia v Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd and others

## **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. 394 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.18 OF 2014 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S:** - **1 BINU XAVIER AGED 45 YEARS S/O.SOURU, POONOLI HOUSE, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 544.** - **2 KOCHUTHRESSIA AGED 69 YEARS W/O.SOURU, POONOLI HOUSE, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 544. BY ADV P.T.JOSE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 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) POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 017, NOW IN THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE,KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KAKKANAD P.O. - 682 030.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 68230.** - **4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **18.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.256/2022, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022 -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. 256 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.18 OF 2014 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 BINU XAVIER AGED 45 YEARS S/O. SOURU, POONOLI HOUSE, KOOVAPADI VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683544** - **2 KOCHUTHRESSIA AGED 73 YEARS W/O. SOURU, POONOLI HOUSE, KOOVAPADI VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 683544** - **3 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017** - **4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682030** - **5 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - KSEB REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 BY ADVS. P.T.JOSE** CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022 -3- **S.ASHITHA(K/000357/2018) ALTHAF P.A.(K/000535/2022) ABEY AUGUSTINE(K/000923/2022)** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **GP B.S.SYAMANTHAK;SC FOR KSEB A.ARUNKUMAR AND B.PREMOD** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **18.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.394/2021, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022 -4- ## **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.18 of 2014. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioners in CRP No.394 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 an extent of 2.81 Ares in Sy.Nos.66/1-2-1, 6-2-3, 7-3 of Koovappady Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022 -5- 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.98,015/- 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 CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022 -6- concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A7 document as well as Exts.C19 and C19(a) commission report and sketch. The court below has adopted the land value of the property involved in Ext.A7 document. Relying on Ext.C19(a) sketch, the court below found that no electric lines were drawn across the petition schedule property and only the outer corridor admeasuring 5.337 cents (5.065 + 0.050 + 0.222) passes through the property. For the outer corridor, 20% of the land value was granted as compensation. The court below also took note of the fact that the major portion of the petition schedule property is situated within the extent covered by the outer corridor. Since the remaining extent admeasures only 0.989 cents and the entire property was found to be affected by the drawing of electric lines, Rs.1,00,000/- was also awarded as compensation to the claimants. Accordingly, the claimants were found entitled to compensation of CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022 **==> picture [19 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** Rs.2,81,393/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimants have filed CRP No.394 of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.256 of 2022 contending that the enhancement ordered is far in excess of the actual damage sustained. 3. Heard Adv.P.T.Jose for the claimants and Adv.Millu Dandapani for the Corporation. 4. 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 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 is flawed since the trees were cut much after issuance of notification by the Corporation and the cause of CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022 -8- action for filing the original petition arose only on payment of the initial compensation, even later. 5. It is further submitted that the court below grossly erred in granting only 20% of the land value for the outer corridor and is also not justified in granting only Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation even after finding the entire property is 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 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.A7 document for fixing the land value of the CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022 **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** claimants' property. As no electric lines were drawn across the petition schedule property and there is no prohibition on the landowner from conducting agricultural activities and putting up small structures, 20% of land value granted for the outer corridor is exorbitant. The court below grossly erred in granting additional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the property which is in no way affected. 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 since no supporting material, other than the findings in the Advocate Commissioner's report, was made available. As found by the court below, apart from the interested testimony of a witness, who is the claimant in some of the connected cases, no other independent witnesses were examined. The court below also took note of the fact that the trees CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** were cut and removed in the year 2011 and the Commissioner inspected the property after a long period. Therefore, the court below rightly refused to accept the assessment made by the Commissioner, which was based on an overview of the trees standing in the remaining petition schedule property and neighbouring property. On the other hand, the court below found the Corporation to have assessed the yield on the basis of local inspection, enquiry and data furnished by the Government departments. It was therefore held that the evidence let in by the claimants was not sufficient to discard the contemporaneous valuation statement prepared by the Corporation. 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_ CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022 -11- _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 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. After considering the similarities of the properties involved, the court below has adopted the land value in Ext.A7 document, which according to me, is reasonable. For the outer CRP Nos.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022 **==> picture [25 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** corridor, 20% of the land value is granted as compensation, which I find to be just and proper. Similarly, discretion was properly exercised by the court below in granting Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, finding the entire property is affected due to the drawing of electric lines. 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.394 of 2021 and 256 of 2022 -13- of the revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 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. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/