Joy Joseph 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** **THURSDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1946** ## **CRP NO. 36 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN OPELE NO.1227 OF 2014 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **JOY JOSEPH AGED 49 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, KOZHUKATTA HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR P.O., KOOVAPPADY, ERNAKULAM - 683 544. BY ADVS. P.T.JOSE S.ASHITHA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 030, NOW IN PAO/400, 220KV SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKARA, KOCHI - 682 303 REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.** - **2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION BUILDING, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 030.** - **4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SC FOR KSEB RIJI RAJENDRAN AND A.ARUNKUMAR;SR.GP.K.P.HARISH AND V.TEKCHAND SC FOR POWERGRID PRAVEEN K.JOY AND MILLU DANDAPANI** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **31.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.71/2022, THE COURT ON 25.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.36 & 71 of 2022 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **THURSDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1946** **CRP NO. 71 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.1227 OF 2014 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682020, 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:** **JOY JOSEPH AGED 54 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, KUZHUKKATTA HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR P.O, KOOVAPPADY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683544 BY ADV P.T.JOSE** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.36/2022, THE COURT ON 25.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.36 & 71 of 2022 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 25[th] 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.1227 of 2014. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.36 of 2022 (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.36 & 71 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.91,081/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.45,540/- towards the CRP Nos.36 & 71 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.C1 and C1(a) commission report and sketch. The Advocate Commissioner reported that a single storied house is situated on the eastern portion of the claimant's property. It is also reported that the Thottuva – Kalady road passes through the northern side of the property. 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.C1(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor was held to be 1.160 cents and that of the outer corridor, 9.266 cents. For the central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for the outer corridor, 20% of the land value. After taking CRP Nos.36 & 71 of 2022 -6- into account the fact that the major portion of the house is situated in the extent covered by outer corridor, and having found that 6.795 cents being left as remaining property, the court below granted Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation towards the same. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.8,54,531/- towards diminution in land value. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.36 of 2022, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.71 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.36 & 71 of 2022 -7- trees, in spite of the Advocate Commissioner assessing and reporting the loss. It is submitted that a house is situated in the claimant's property and the Thottuva-Kalady road passes through the northern side of the property. 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 only 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 major portion of the house is situated in the extent covered by the outer corridor and an area admeasuring 6.975 cents left as remaining property. Considering the extent of damage sustained and the diminution in land value consequent to the drawing of lines, the court CRP Nos.36 & 71 of 2022 -8- below ought to have granted compensation as claimed. 6. Learned Counsel for the Corporation contended that, compensation towards the trees cut and 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.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. The court below grossly erred in granting Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation towards injurious affection on the house and for the remaining property, which is in no way affected. 7. The court below had awarded 50% of the compensation already granted as additional CRP Nos.36 & 71 of 2022 -9- 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. 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 given situation may lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose for_ CRP Nos.36 & 71 of 2022 -10- _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. The court below has 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 value for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridor. The court below has granted Rs.5,00,000/- for the remaining property and towards injurious affection on the house situated in the extent covered by the outer corridor, which also I find to be just and CRP Nos.36 & 71 of 2022 -11- 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 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 CRP Nos.36 & 71 of 2022 **==> picture [25 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** 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. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/