George Joseph vs 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 21[ST] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946** ## **CRP NO. 367 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.1225 OF 2014 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **GEORGE JOSEPH AGED 49 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH, KOZHUKKATTA HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR P.O., KOOVAPPADY, ERNAKULAM-683 544 BY ADV P.T.JOSE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, KAKKANAD, NOW IN FAO/400, 220 KV SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKARA, KOCHI-682 303 REP BY DEPUTY MANAGER** - **2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM P.O., -682 030,** - **3 ADDL.R3- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION BUILDING, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 030** - **4 ADDL.R4-KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **PRAVEEN K.JOY-R1,SR.GP.V.TEKCHAND,B.PRAMOD SC ,KSEB** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **08.04.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.74/2022, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 of 2022 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946** **CRP NO. 74 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.1225 OF 2014 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD 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.** **BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 GEORGE JOSEPH AGED 57 YEARS S/O JOSEOH, KOZHUKKATTA HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR P.O, KOOVAPPADY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683544** - **2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., THRIKKAKKRA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM682030** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 030.** - **4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD., VAIDHYTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. BY ADV P.T.JOSE** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **08.04.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.367/2021, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 of 2022 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 21[st] 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.1225 of 2014. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.367 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 7.23 Ares comprised in Re-Sy.No.41/15 of Koovappady Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 of 2022 -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.54,665/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.27,332/- towards the CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 of 2022 -5- value of trees cut. As far as the claim for enhanced compensation towards diminution in land value is concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A4 document as well as Exts.C5 and C5(a) commission report and plan. The court below took note of the fact that the Thottuva – Kalady road lies at a distance of about 450 metres on the northern side of the petition schedule property and a pathway having a width of 2.4 metres that starts from the claimant's property leads to the said road. Based on these factors, the court below fixed the land value of the claimant's property at Rs.1,53,000/- per cent, which is equivalent to 10% less than the land value of the property involved in Ext.A4 document. Relying on Ext.C5(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor was held to be 7.215 cents and that of the outer corridor, 10.650 cents. For the central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for outer corridor, 20% of the land value. CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 of 2022 -6- After taking into account the fact that the entire petition schedule property is covered by the central and outer corridors and a portion of the line passes across the residential building, the court below granted Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on that account. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.12,67,448/- towards diminution in land value. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.367 of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.74 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 granting only 50% of the amount already paid as enhanced compensation for the loss sustained due to the cutting of valuable CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 of 2022 -7- trees, in spite of the Advocate Commissioner assessing and reporting the loss. It is submitted that the Thottuva – Kalady road lies at a distance of about 450 metres on the northern side of the petition schedule property and a pathway having a width of 2.4 metres that starts from the claimant's property leads to the said road. Without properly considering these crucial factors, the land value of the property is fixed as only Rs.1,53,000/- per cent. 5. It is submitted that the court below grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land value for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridor. It is further submitted that the court below is not justified in granting only Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation, even after finding the entire petition schedule property is covered by the corridors and a portion of the line also passes across the residential building situated in the property. According to the learned CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 of 2022 -8- 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. 6. Learned Counsel for the Corporation contended that the compensation granted towards the trees cut and diminution in land value is exorbitant and there is no rationale in granting 9% interest on that amount. The court below also erred in relying on Ext.A4 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. According to the learned Counsel, the court below grossly erred in granting Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation towards injurious affection on the house and for CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 of 2022 -9- the remaining property, which is in no way affected. 7. The court below had awarded 50% of the compensation already granted as additional compensation towards the value of trees cut, based on the Commission report as 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. For fixing the compensation payable towards 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_ CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 of 2022 -10- _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, 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, 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.A4, the court below fixed the land value at Rs.1,53,000/- per cent, viz; 10% less than the land value of the property involved in Ext.A4 document, which according to me, is reasonable. Similarly, the discretion was properly exercised by the court below in granting 40% of the land CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 of 2022 -11- value for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridor. Taking into account the fact that the entire petition schedule property is covered by the corridors and a portion of the line passes across the residential building situated in the property, the court below has granted Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant, which also I find to be just and proper. 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 CRP Nos.367 of 2021 & 74 of 2022 -12- 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 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. **==> picture [26 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/