C. V. Varghese v Power Grid Corporation of India Construction Area Office & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **FRIDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1945** ## **CRP NO. 377 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.901 OF 2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **C.V.VARGHESE AGED 78 YEARS S/O.VARKEY, CHAKKALA KURYAPURAM, IRINGOL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK - 683 545. 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., PALLIKARA, 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.K.P.HARISH;SR.GP.V.TEKCHAND;SC FOR POWERGRID PRAVEEN K.JOY** ## **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **22.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.178/2022, THE COURT ON 01.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.377/21 & 178/22 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **FRIDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1945** **CRP NO. 178 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.901 OF 2013 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 C.V VARGHESE AGED 79 YEARS S/O. VARKEY, CHAKKALA KURYAPURAM, IRINGOL P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN - 683545** - **2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682030** - **4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - KSEB REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 BY ADV P.T.JOSE** ## **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **22.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.377/2021, THE COURT ON 01.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.377/21 & 178/22 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 01[st] day of March, 2024 These revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P.(Electricity) No.901 of 2013. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.377 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 31 cents comprised in Sy.No.306/5 of Perumbavoor Village in Kunathunadu Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. CRP Nos.377/21 & 178/22 -4- 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.99,321/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 CRP Nos.377/21 & 178/22 -5- document as well as Exts.C18 and C18(a) commission report and sketch. Relying on Ext.C18(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor was held to be 17.716 cents and that of the outer corridors, 10.355 cents (8.525 + 1.830). For the central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for outer corridors, 20% of the land value. The court below also noticed that a house is situated in the extent covered by the central corridor and granted Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on that account. Similarly, Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded for the remaining property admeasuring 1.235 cents. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.18,56,207/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.377 of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.178 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 CRP Nos.377/21 & 178/22 -6- 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 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. 5. It is submitted that the court below grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land value for the central corridor and only 20% for outer corridors. It is further submitted that the court below is not justified in granting only CRP Nos.377/21 & 178/22 -7- Rs.2,00,000/- towards injurious affection on the house situated under the central corridor and only, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the remaining property rendered useless due to drawing of the 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 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 CRP Nos.377/21 & 178/22 -8- are exorbitant. The court below grossly erred in granting Rs.2,00,000/towards injurious affection on the house and Rs.1,00,000/- for the remaining portion of the property, which was unaffected by drawing of the lines. 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 witnesses were examined. It is also noticed by the court below that the trees 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 the trees standing in the CRP Nos.377/21 & 178/22 -9- remaining 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 claimant 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 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_ CRP Nos.377/21 & 178/22 -10- _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 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. The court below has adopted the land value in Ext.A7 document, which according to me, is reasonable. The discretion was properly exercised in granting 40% of the land value as compensation for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridors. The court below is justified in granting Rs.2,00,000/- towards injurious affection on the house situated under the central corridor and Rs.1,00,000/- for the remaining property. As such, there is no illegality or material CRP Nos.377/21 & 178/22 -11- 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 portion of the enhanced compensation is deposited by the Corporation, that shall forthwith be disbursed to the claimant on appropriate application being filed. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/