Kerala State Electricity Board (represented by its Secretary) v Paul S/O Augustine

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **FRIDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945** **CRP NO. 392 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.06.2012 IN OPEA NO.63 OF 2008 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), ALAPPUZHA REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 004.** **RESPONDENT/S:** **PAUL S/O.AUGUSTINE, CHATHAPRAMBIL, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, PIN - 688 534.** **BY ADVS. SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN SRI.SABU GEORGE** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP NO.422 OF 2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.392 and 422 of 2012 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **FRIDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945 CRP NO. 422 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.06.2012 IN OPEA NO.63 OF 2008 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), ALAPPUZHA REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **C.A.PAUL S/O. AUGUSTINE, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ROSE VILLA, E-18, SOUMYA NAGAR, ALINCHUVADU, EDAPPALLY P.O., PIN-682 024, FROM CHATHAPARAMBIL, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.** **BY ADV SRI.SABU GEORGE** **RESPONDENT/S:** **THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.** **BY ADV SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SC FOR KSEB B.PREMOD** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION** **ON 02.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP 392/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.392 and 422 of 2012 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 02[nd] day of February, 2024 These revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Alappuzha in O.P.(EA) No.63 of 2008. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.422 of 2012 (hereinafter called 'the claimant'), being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded towards the damage and loss sustained due to the drawing of 110 KV single circuit lines across his property by the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter called 'the KSEB'). The essential facts are as under; The claimant is in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 8.5 cents in Sy.No.418/5 in Aroor Village in Cherthala Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. According to CRP Nos.392 and 422 of 2012 -4- 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 Rs.625/- 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. After considering the age and nature of trees in detail, the court below partly allowed the claim for enhanced compensation for the value of trees cut and consequently granted Rs.3,000/for Anjili tree of 30 years old, Rs.300/- for Anjili tree of 8 years, Rs.2,000/- for arecanut tree, Rs.200 for Ambazham tree and Rs.100 for CRP Nos.392 and 422 of 2012 -5- Arana tree. Thus, the claimant was found entitled to additional compensation of Rs.4,975/-, after deducting Rs.625/- already paid. 3. As far as the claim for enhanced compensation towards diminution in land value is concerned, the court below considered Exts.A1 to A3 documents as well as Exts.C1 and C1(a) commission report and sketch. On such consideration, it was observed that, while the properties in Exts.A1 and A2 documents have road frontage to the National Highway, the claimant's property is situated at a distance of 60 metres from the Highway. Based on Ext.C1 report, it was found that the claimant's property is situated about 60 metres East of the National Highway and 250 metres South of Vembanattu Kayal. Details of schools, markets, places of worship, police station, railway station etc. situated within 2 Kms of the claimant's property, as reported by the Commissioner, were also taken note of. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to CRP Nos.392 and 422 of 2012 -6- compensation of Rs.73,700/- towards diminution of land value. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.422 of 2012, whereas the KSEB has filed CRP No.392 of 2012 contending that the enhancement ordered is far in excess of the actual damage sustained. 4. Heard Adv.Sabu George for the claimant and Adv.B.Pramod for the KSEB. 5. Learned Counsel for the claimant contended that the court below grossly erred in not considering the nature, age and yield of trees cut while granting enhanced compensation for the loss sustained due to the cutting of valuable trees. It is further submitted that despite specific averments being raised with respect to the yield of the trees cut, the court below had failed to appreciate the same in a proper manner. It is also submitted that the court below grossly erred in granting only 40% towards diminution in land value, in spite of a diminution of 50% being reported by the Advocate CRP Nos.392 and 422 of 2012 -7- Commissioner. 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 KSEB contended that the enhanced compensation granted towards value of the trees cut and for diminution in land value are exorbitant and there is no rationale in granting 6 **%** interest on that amount. The court below also erred in relying on Exts.A1 to A3 documents 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% for diminution in land value is 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 considered on the basis of available CRP Nos.392 and 422 of 2012 -8- documents. It is clear from the impugned order that the compensation was granted after considering the age and nature of trees cut, which I find to be just and equitable. 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 which the same was meant to be used.”_ On careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the compensation was granted after taking all the above factors into consideration. CRP Nos.392 and 422 of 2012 -9- The nature of the land, the cultivation therein, the commercial importance and the manner in which the land was affected by drawing of the lines have all been considered for fixing the land value as well as the percentage of diminution. The court below having thus exercised the discretion rightly in fixing the land value and percentage of diminution, I find 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 KSEB are dismissed. The KSEB shall pay the enhanced compensation fixed by the court below within three months of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- **==> picture [180 x 28] intentionally omitted <==** Scl/