K.K. John v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (CRP Nos. 102 & 268 of 2021)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20**[TH] **DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** ## **CRP NO. 102 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 06.11.2020 IN OP(ELE) 41/2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** K.K. JOHN AGED 71 YEARS S/O. K. K. KOSHY, KAMUKUMPALLIL HOUSE, VAKAYAR P. O., KONNI VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK. BY ADV ARUN BABU **RESPONDENT/S:** POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., SANTHOSH JUNCTION, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689645, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SC PRAVEEN K. JOY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.268/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRP Nos. 102 and 268 of 2021 -2- **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20**[TH] **DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** **CRP NO. 268 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 06.11.2020 IN OP(ELE) 41/2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA, SANTHOSH JUNCTION, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, PIN-689645. BY ADV PRAVEEN K. JOY ## **RESPONDENT/S:** K.K.JOHN, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. K.K. KOSHY, KAMUKUMPALLIL HOUSE, VAKAYAR P.O., KONNI VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PIN-689698. BY ADV ARUN BABU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.102/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRP Nos. 102 and 268 of 2021 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 20[th] day of December, 2023 The revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed in O.P.(Electricity) No.41 of 2018 by the Additional District Judge-I, Pathanamthitta, deciding the claim raised by the landowner for damages sustained by the drawing of 400 KV lines across his property. CRP No.102 of 2021 is filed by the claimant/landowner and CRP No.268 of 2021 by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Going by the undisputed facts, the total extent of the claimant’s property is 76.329 cents. For the purpose of drawing the lines, 140 rubber trees, 30 pepper vines, 4 jack trees, 1 coconut tree and a few teak trees had to be cut off. Further, a tower was also installed in the claimant's property. By the impugned order, the court below granted a consolidated amount of Rs.53,52,189/- towards value of trees cut and CRP Nos. 102 and 268 of 2021 **==> picture [16 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** diminution of land value. The claimant contends that the value of trees as well as the diminution granted is less than the damages actually suffered. On the other hand, the Corporation's contention is that the compensation granted is far in excess of the actual damage suffered. **==> picture [381 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** the claimant assailed the quantum of compensation fixed under the following heads; **==> picture [320 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** (ii) Towards the value of pepper vines. and **==> picture [261 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** As regards the first head, the submission is that the court below had fixed the price of rubber at Rs.50, in spite of the petitioner having produced Ext.A18 price list published by the Department of Economics and Statistics to prove that the price of rubber in Adoor and Ranni area during the relevant period varied between 115-217 per CRP Nos. 102 and 268 of 2021 -5- kilogram. Moreover, even as per the DVS prepared by the Corporation itself, the price of rubber was Rs.106.50 per kilogram. 3. The contention with respect to the second ground is that in Ext.A18, the price of pepper during the relevant period is shown as Rs.415/in Adoor and Rs.420/- per kilogram in Ranni. As against this, the court below fixed the price at Rs.200/- per kilogram. Yet another contention is that PW3, the Agricultural Officer has specifically stated that yield of Karimunda variety pepper vine would be around 25kg per annum whereas the court below, without assigning any reason whatsoever, fixed the yield as 4 kg per annum. 4. As regards the inadequacy of compensation granted towards diminution of land value, it is contended that the Advocate Commissioner had reported that, not only the 40 cents over which the tower is erected, but the CRP Nos. 102 and 268 of 2021 -6- entire extent of 76.329 cents is adversely effected and rendered useless by drawing of the line. 5. Attention is drawn to paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment to contend that, in spite of the court below being convinced that the entire extent of land was fully affected due to the drawing of high tension lines through the centre of the property, the percentage of diminution is fixed at 50%. It is also contended that, in spite of the petitioner producing Exts.A13, A14 and A16 documents to prove the market value of the land, the court below unilaterally fixed the value of the land as Rs.1,00,000/- per cent. It is hence contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the just and fair compensation awarded to the claimant. 6. Learned Counsel also contended that the claimants are entitled for compensation in CRP Nos. 102 and 268 of 2021 -7- accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('the Act of 2013' for short), in view of the IV[th] Schedule of that Act. 7. Adv.Praveen K.Joy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation contended that the court below grossly erred in fixing the value of the land at Rs.1,00,000/-, in spite of there being clear cut evidence to the effect that the fair value of land in the area was Rs.30,000/per annum. The further contention is that the court below did not afford opportunity for the Corporation to file its objection against the Commissioner's report. It is contended that even the 50% granted towards diminution of land value is on the higher side, since the petitioner is still residing in the house constructed in the property and is taking yield from the standing trees. It is also contended that Ext.A18 cannot CRP Nos. 102 and 268 of 2021 -8- be the basis for fixing the yield and the price of rubber and pepper since that document does not pertain to the period when the trees were cut. It is argued that Exts.A13, A14 and A16 documents cannot be the basis for fixing the land value, in the absence of evidence as to whether the lands therein are identical to the land over which the lines are drawn. The final contention is that, having received the compensation without demur in 2017, it is not open for the claimant to challenge the quantum of compensation at a later stage. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel on either side and having carefully scrutinised the judgment, I find substantial merit in the submission that the judgment was rendered without considering relevant aspects and vital documents. As rightly contended, the basis on which the court below has fixed the price of rubber at Rs.50 per kilogram is not discernible from the CRP Nos. 102 and 268 of 2021 **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** judgment. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the claimant had examined PW2; an officer of the Rubber Board, to prove the yield of rubber. Even though PW3 the agricultural officer was examined and Ext.A18 produced to prove the price and yield of rubber, there is no discussion with regard to these aspects. There is also merit in the submission that, while fixing the value of the land, the documents produced were not looked into. Of course, it is for the court below to decide upon the acceptability or otherwise of the documents. I also find substance in the contention urged by the Counsel for the claimant based on the Division Bench decision in ## _**KSEB v. Maranchi Matha and Others [2008(1) KLT**_ _**1038]**_ that the interest ought to be calculated from the date of cutting of trees and not from the date of petition. In such circumstances, this Court is left with no alternative, but to set aside the judgment and to remand the matter for CRP Nos. 102 and 268 of 2021 -10- fresh consideration. Accordingly, the impugned order in O.P. (Electricity) No.41 of 2018 of the Additional District Judge-I, Pathanamthitta is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. The claimant's contention regarding applicability of the Act of 2013 can be raised before the court below. If the Corporation has not filed its objection to the Advocate Commissioner's report, such an opportunity shall be granted. The original petition being of the year 2018, the court below shall take earnest efforts to dispose of the matter within four months, based on the documents already on record. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/