## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN**
**THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945 CRP NO. 388 OF 2021**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.716 OF 2014 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S:**
**E.R. CHANDRAN AGED 63 YEARS S/O.RAMAN, ELLIKKAKUDI, KOOVAPPADI P.O., AYMURI, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 544.**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
|**1**|**POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.**|
|---|---|
||**CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, KAKKANAD, NOW IN**|
||**PAO/400, 220KV SUB STATION, 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.**|
**THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON**
**18.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP 171/22, THE COURT ON 07.03.2024,**
**DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
CRP Nos.388/21 & 171/22
-2-
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN**
**THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945 CRP NO. 171 OF 2022**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.716 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 - 683 565, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER, PIN - 682030**
**BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
**1 E.R CHANDRAN , S/O RAMAN, AGED 63 YEARS, ILLIKKAKUDI, KOOVAPPADY P O, AYMURI , KOOVAPADI VILLAGE , KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683544 2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017 BY ADV P.T.JOSE**
**OTHER PRESENT:**
## **SRI.K.P.HARISH-SR.GP**
**THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP 388/21, THE COURT ON 07.03.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
CRP Nos.388/21 & 171/22
-3-
## **ORDER**
Dated this the 07[th] 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.716 of 2014. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.388 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 28 cents
comprised in Sy.No.220/11-2-3 in Koovappady Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-
CRP Nos.388/21 & 171/22
-4-
yielding trees. 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.91,693/- 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.388/21 & 171/22
-5-
document as well as Exts.C5 and C5(a) commission report and sketch. Relying on Ext.C5(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor was held to be 0.125 cent and that of the outer corridor, 6.670 cents. For the central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for outer corridor, 20% of the land value. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.2,35,196/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.388 of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.171 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 refusing to grant enhanced compensation for the loss sustained due to the cutting of valuable trees, in spite of the Advocate Commissioner
CRP Nos.388/21 & 171/22
-6-
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 corridor. 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
CRP Nos.388/21 & 171/22
**==> picture [19 x 7] intentionally omitted <==**
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 corridor are exorbitant.
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.
CRP Nos.388/21 & 171/22
-8-
Therefore, the court below rightly refused to accept the assessment made by the Commissioner, which was based on the standing trees in the claimant's property and the 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 at the instance of 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_
CRP Nos.388/21 & 171/22
-9-
_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 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 corridor. It is pertinent to note that the court below had followed the decision of this Court in _**V.V.**_
CRP Nos.388/21 & 171/22
-10-
## _**Jayaram v Kerala State Electricity Board [2015**_
_**(3) KHC 453]**_ to fix the rate of interest at 9% per annum on the compensation towards diminution in land value. 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 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.
**==> picture [43 x 12] intentionally omitted <==**
**V.G.ARUN JUDGE**
Scl/
