Jijo v Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1945** ## **CRP NO. 401 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 118/2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** JIJO AGED 42 YEARS S/O.LONA @ LONAPPAN, PALATTY HOUSE, AMALAPURAM, AYYAMPUZHA P.O., MANJAPRA. BY ADVS. P.T.JOSE S.ASHITHA ## **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 TH SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, NOW IN KAKKANAD P.O. - 682 030. 3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 021. 4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI.V.TEKCHAND-SR.GP ,SRI.A.ARUN KUMAR-SC ,KSEB THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.31/2022, THE COURT ON 21.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRP Nos.401/2021 & 31/2022 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1945** **CRP NO. 31 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 118/2013 OF VI** **ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN 6821 030, PRESENTLY AT CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, 400/220, K. V SUB STATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O, PALLIKKARA,ERNAKULAM , REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR, PIN - 683565 BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI 1 JIJO S/O LONA @ LONAPPAN, PALATTY HOUSE, AMALAPURAM, AYYAMPUZHA P.O, MANJAPRA. 2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CHEVARANTHALAM, KOZHIKODE 673017. 3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682030. 4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD, VYTHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. BY ADVS. P.T.JOSE GOVERNMENT PLEADER R.HARISHANKAR ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **12.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.401/2021, THE COURT ON 21.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.401/2021 & 31/2022 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 21[st] day of February, 2024 These revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P.(Electricity) No.118 of 2013. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.401 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 35.43 Ares (87.5 cents) comprised in Re-Sy.No.40/6/2 in Block No.21 of Ayyampuzha Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and CRP Nos.401/2021 & 31/2022 -4- non-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.2,64,173/- 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.A4 CRP Nos.401/2021 & 31/2022 -5- document as well as Exts.C1 and C1(a) commission report and plan. The court below noticed that, while Ext.A4 property having public roads on two sides, access to the claimant's property is through a pathway, having 1-2 metres width, starting from the Manjapra-Ayyampuzha road. Based on these factors, the court below fixed the land value of the claimant's property by deducting 10% of the value shown in Ext.A4 property. Relying on Ext.C1(a) plan, the extent of the central corridor was held to be 9.612 cents and that of the outer corridors, 22.609 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.16,94,822/-. In the absence of evidence regarding injurious affection with respect to the remaining property admeasuring 22.39 Ares and on finding that the lines were drawn over the extreme eastern portion of the CRP Nos.401/2021 & 31/2022 -6- subject property, no compensation was granted towards the diminution in land value for that extent of property. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.401 of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.31 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 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 CRP Nos.401/2021 & 31/2022 -7- notification by the Corporation and the cause of action for filing the original petition arose only on payment of the initial compensation, even later. It is further contended that 10% deduction made from the value of property involved in Ext.A4 document is unreasonable. 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 failed to consider the remaining property while granting the additional compensation. 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.401/2021 & 31/2022 -8- 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. 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 the claimant and that of a person who claimed to have purchased agricultural products from the landowners for the last ten years, no other witnesses were examined. The court below rightly refused to accept their testimony since it was at variance with the CRP Nos.401/2021 & 31/2022 -9- claim in the petition and the assessment made by the Commissioner. For the same reason, the findings in the Commission report were also not accepted. On the other hand, the court below found the Corporation to have assessed the yield on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Government. 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._ CRP Nos.401/2021 & 31/2022 -10- _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, 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 deducted only 10% of the land value in Ext.A4 document, which according to me, is a reasonable deduction. For the central corridor, 40% of the land value is granted as compensation and for the outer corridors, 20% is granted. The court below is justified in rejecting the claim for alleged diminution in land value of the remaining property for want of evidence to prove the CRP Nos.401/2021 & 31/2022 -11- claim. 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 Corporation shall pay the enhanced compensation fixed by the court below 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/