Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeRevision petitions allowed; impugned orders set...

Maya Venu vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd

Case / Petition Number:CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • V. G. Arun
Judgment Date
2023-12-05
Court Decision / Holding
The civil revision petitions are allowed; the impugned orders are set aside; the matters are remitted to the District Court for fresh consideration on merits.
Final Disposition
Revision petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside; remitted to District Court for fresh merits consideration.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Maya Venu
  • Babu
  • Mary Varghese
  • Narayanankutty
  • Omanakumari
  • Pushpaja
  • T.S. Pradeep
  • Sujatha
  • Gopinathan
  • V. Chandran
  • Benny Antony
  • P.S Narayanan

Respondents

  • POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
  • SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • VAISAKHI V BABU
  • • M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
  • • P.U.VINOD KUMAR
  • • ARYA RAGHUNATH
  • • T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ
  • • AJWIN P LALSON
  • • KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU
  • • P.LAKSHMI
  • • AYSHA E.M.
  • • SHIFANA KAISE

Counsels for Respondents

  • • GOVERNMENT PLEADER
  • • MILLU DANDAPANI
  • • JOSHI THANICKAMATTOM

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch of Civil Revision Petitions arises from the Power Grid Corporation's construction of 400 kV transmission lines over private properties and the consequent claims for compensation for damages. The revision petitioners challenge the dismissal of their petitions by the District Court on the ground of limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, arguing that compensation for both the value of trees cut and diminution in land value was due and that the right to seek such compensation accrues on the occurrence of the last damage or upon inadequate compensation, not simply from the date of tree-cutting. They contend that Government orders and schemes, including ex gratia payments in 2017-2018 and subsequent packages, did not extinguish their statutory rights to full compensation under the Telegraph Act, 1885, particularly Section 16(3). The respondents maintain that the 2017-2018 ex gratia payments were not compensation and that the three-year period began from the initial act of cutting, and thus the petitions were time-barred. The Kerala High Court, relying on decisions under the Indian Telegraph Act and precedent on accrual of rights to sue, holds that the right to apply accrues with the last act causing damage or when compensation proves to be inadequate, and that the petitions were filed within time. The court allows the petitions, sets aside the impugned orders, and remits the matters for merits to the District Court.

Provisions of Law Cited

Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 – Section 4(1) provisoIndian Telegraph Act, 1885 – Section 10Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 – Section 10(d)Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 – Section 16(3)Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 – Section 19BLimitation Act, 1963 – Article 137

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Continuing cause of action
  • Ex gratia payment: payment without legal consideration; distinction from compensation
  • Right to claim compensation accrues when damage occurs or is insufficiently compensated

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that compensation for both the diminution in land value and the value of trees cut is due under the Telegraph Act, and that time limits cannot bar their claims because the right to apply accrues at the last act causing damage or when the compensation is inadequate. They argued that ex gratia payments under government orders did not extinguish the statutory right to full compensation, and that the scheme for compensation, including the 2010–2015 packages, confirms the landowners' entitlement. They urged that the District Court misapplied Article 137 by anchoring the limitation to the date of cutting of trees and failed to consider the continuing nature of damage and the accrual of right to apply.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the 2017–2018 ex gratia payment was not compensation but a discretionary payment under government orders and therefore cannot be treated as part of the compensation due. They contended that the limitation period runs from the date of cutting and that the petitions were filed well beyond three years, thus rightly dismissed by the District Court. They relied on the statutory scheme and case law to sustain that the petitioners had no legal right to file under Article 137, and that the impugned orders did not warrant interference.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
KSEB v. Cheriyan Varghese[1989] 1 KLT 451PositiveHeld landowners are entitled to compensation for the value of trees cut as well as diminution of land value.
Kerala State Electricity Board v. T.P. Kunhaliumma(1976) 4 SCC 634PositiveHeld that original petitions are within Article 137 of the Limitation Act; accrual of right to apply.
Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. Central Bank of India(2020) 17 SCC 260PositiveContrast between Article 113 and Article 137 to determine accrual of right to sue; supports accrual concept.
Hughson Condensed Milk Co. v. State Board of Equalization23 Cal.App.2d 281; 73 P.2d 290; 292Mentioned OnlyUsed for definitional referencing of terms like compensation and ex gratia; not a binding authority in the issue at hand.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Maya Venu vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**“CR”** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1945** **CRP NO. 48 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP(ELE) 72/2019 OF ADDITIONAL** **DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** MAYA VENU AGED 40 YEARS W/O V S VENU, VALLIKKATU HOUSE, AIMURY KARA, ELAMBAKAPILLY P O, KAYYUTHIYAL, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683544. BY ADVS. VAISAKHI V BABU KARUKAPADATH(B-13) M.A.VAHEEDA BABU(V-4) P.U.VINOD KUMAR(K/647/2002) ARYA RAGHUNATH(K/000474/2018) T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ(K/000261/2018) AJWIN P LALSON(K/001394/2018) KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU(MAH/8319/2019) P.LAKSHMI(K/001868/2021) AYSHA E.M.(K/001130/2022) SHIFANA KAISE(K/001171/2023) ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD 400 K V SUB STATION, PALLIKARA, KIKZHAKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, KUMARAPURAM P O, PIN-683565. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, MAVELIPURAM HOUSING COLONY, EDASSERY HOME OPPOSITE, CORPORATION BANK, KAKKANAD, KAKKANAD P O, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030. CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -2- ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SC FOR POWERGRID MILLU DANDAPANI; GP JOSHI THANICKAMATTOM THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.51/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 05.12.2023, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -3- # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** **CRP NO. 51 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP(ELE) 70/2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** BABU AGED 43 YEARS S/O. SOURU, THOPPILAN HOUSE, AIMURY KARA, ELAMBAKAPILLY P.O, KAYYUTHIYAL, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683 544 BY ADVS. VAISAKHI V BABU KARUKAPADATH(B-13) M.A.VAHEEDA BABU(V-4) P.U.VINOD KUMAR(K/647/2002) ARYA RAGHUNATH(K/000474/2018) T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ(K/000261/2018) AJWIN P LALSON(K/001394/2018) KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU(MAH/8319/2019) P.LAKSHMI(K/001868/2021) AYSHA E.M.(K/001130/2022) SHIFANA KAISE(K/001171/2023) ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 POWER GRID CROPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 400 KV SUB STATION, PALLIKARA, KIZHAKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, KUMARAPURAM P.O, PIN 683565 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -4- 2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, MAVELIPURAM HOUSING COLONY, EDASSERY HOME OPPOSITE CORPORATION BANK, KAKKANAD, KAKKANAD P.O, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 030 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.48/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 05.12.2023, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -5- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1945** **CRP NO. 52 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP(ELE) 66/2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** MARY VARGHESE AGED 71 YEARS W/O VARGHESE, MULLAMANGALAM HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, IRINGOLE P O, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683545. BY ADVS. VAISAKHI V BABU KARUKAPADATH(B-13) M.A.VAHEEDA BABU(V-4) P.U.VINOD KUMAR(K/647/2002) ARYA RAGHUNATH(K/000474/2018) T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ(K/000261/2018) AJWIN P LALSON(K/001394/2018) KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU(MAH/8319/2019) P.LAKSHMI(K/001868/2021) AYSHA E.M.(K/001130/2022) SHIFANA KAISE(K/001171/2023) ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA 400 K V SUB STATION , PALLIKARA, KIZHAKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHANADU TALUK, KUMARAPURAM P O, PIN-683565. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -6- 2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, MAVELIPURAM HOSING COLONY, EDASSERY HOME OPPOSITE, CORPORATION BANK, KAKKANAD, KAKKANAD P O, ERNAKULAM. PIN-682030. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.48/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 05.12.2023, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -7- # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1945** **CRP NO. 53 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP(ELE) 67/2019 OF ADDITIONAL** **DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** NARAYANANKUTTY AGED 69 YEARS S/O KORU, VALIYAMKOTTIL HOUSE, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, AIMURY P O, KAVUMPURAM, PERUMBAVOOR PIN-683544. BY ADVS. VAISAKHI V BABU KARUKAPADATH(B-13) M.A.VAHEEDA BABU(V-4) P.U.VINOD KUMAR(K/647/2002) ARYA RAGHUNATH(K/000474/2018) T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ(K/000261/2018) AJWIN P LALSON(K/001394/2018) KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU(MAH/8319/2019) P.LAKSHMI(K/001868/2021) AYSHA E.M.(K/001130/2022) SHIFANA KAISE(K/001171/2023) ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 400 K V SUB STATION, PALLIKARA, KIZHAKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, KUMARAPURAM P O, PIN-683565. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR( LA) POWER GIRD CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, MAVELIPURAM CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -8- HOUSING COLONY, EDASSERY HOME OPPOSITE CORPORAIOTN BANK, KAKKANAD, KAKKANAD P O, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.54/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 05.12.2023, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -9- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1945** **CRP NO. 54 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP(ELE) 71/2019 OF ADDITIONAL** **DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** OMANAKUMARI AGED 69 YEARS D/O LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, PADICKAL PUTHENVEEDU, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, AIMURY P O, KAVUMPURAM, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683544. BY ADVS. VAISAKHI V BABU KARUKAPADATH(B-13) M.A.VAHEEDA BABU(V-4) P.U.VINOD KUMAR(K/647/2002) ARYA RAGHUNATH(K/000474/2018) T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ(K/000261/2018) AJWIN P LALSON(K/001394/2018) KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU(MAH/8319/2019) P.LAKSHMI(K/001868/2021) AYSHA E.M.(K/001130/2022) SHIFANA KAISE(K/001171/2023) ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 400 KV SUB STATION, PALLIKARA, KIZHAKAMBALAM VILLAGE,, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, , KUMARAPURAM P O, PIN-683565. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -10- 2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, MAVELIPURAM HOUSING COLONY, EDASSERY HOME OPPOSITE, CORPORATION BANK, KAKKANAD P O, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.48/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 05.12.2023, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -11- CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1945** **CRP NO. 55 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP(ELE) 65/2019 OF ADDITIONAL** ## **DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** 1 PUSHPAJA AGED 54 YEARS W/O. SIVADASAN NAIR, PANAMBILLY HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, IRINGOLE P. O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 545. 2 SILPA AGED 23 YEARS D/O. SIVADASAN NAIR, PANAMBILLY HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, IRINGOLE P. O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 545. 3 GOKULKRISHNA AGED 18 YEARS S/O. SIVADASAN NAIR, PANAMBILLY HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, IRINGOLE P. O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 545. BY ADVS. VAISAKHI V BABU KARUKAPADATH(B-13) M.A.VAHEEDA BABU(V-4) P.U.VINOD KUMAR(K/647/2002) ARYA RAGHUNATH(K/000474/2018) T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ(K/000261/2018) AJWIN P LALSON(K/001394/2018) KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU(MAH/8319/2019) P.LAKSHMI(K/001868/2021) AYSHA E.M.(K/001130/2022) SHIFANA KAISE(K/001171/2023) CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -12- ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 400 KV SUB STATION, PALLIKARA, KIZHAKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, KUMARAPURAM P. O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 565, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., MAVELIPURAM HOUSEING COLONY, EDASSERY HOME, OPPOSITE CORPORATION BANK, KAKKANAD, KAKKANAD P. O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 030. BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.54/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 05.12.2023, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -13- CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1945** **CRP NO. 56 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP(ELE) 69/2019 OF ADDITIONAL** **DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** 1 T.S.PRADEEP AGED 52 YEARS S/O.SANKARANARAYANAN, THATTARUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, AIMURY P.O., KAVUMPURAM, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683 544 2 M.K.SUJATHA AGED 49 YEARS W/O.T.S.PRADEEP. THATTARUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, AIMURY P.O., KAVUMPURAM, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683 544 BY ADVS. VAISAKHI V BABU KARUKAPADATH(B-13) M.A.VAHEEDA BABU(V-4) P.U.VINOD KUMAR(K/647/2002) ARYA RAGHUNATH(K/000474/2018) T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ(K/000261/2018) AJWIN P LALSON(K/001394/2018) KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU(MAH/8319/2019) P.LAKSHMI(K/001868/2021) AYSHA E.M.(K/001130/2022) SHIFANA KAISE(K/001171/2023) ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 400 KV SUB STATION, PALLIKARA, KIZHAKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PIN 683 565. REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -14- 2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., MAVELIPURAM HOUSING COLONY, EDASSERY HOME OPPOSITE CORPORATION BANK, KAKKANAD, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM PIN 682 030 BY ADVS. MILLU DANDAPANI GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.54/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 05.12.2023, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -15- # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1945** **CRP NO. 64 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP(ELE) 73/2019 OF ADDITIONAL** **DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** GOPINATHAN, AGED 64 YEARS S/O.SANKARAN, PEECHAMPILLY HOUSE, AIMURY KARA, ELAMBAKAPILLY P.O., KAYYUTHIYAL,, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 544. BY ADVS. VAISAKHI V BABU KARUKAPADATH(B-13) M.A.VAHEEDA BABU(V-4) P.U.VINOD KUMAR(K/647/2002) ARYA RAGHUNATH(K/000474/2018) T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ(K/000261/2018) AJWIN P LALSON(K/001394/2018) KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU(MAH/8319/2019) P.LAKSHMI(K/001868/2021) AYSHA E.M.(K/001130/2022) SHIFANA KAISE(K/001171/2023) ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., 400 KV SUB STATION, PALLIKARA, KIZHAKAMBALM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PIN-683 565, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -16- 2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., MAVELIPURAM HOUSING COLONY, EDASSERY HOME OPPOSITE CORPORATION BANK, KAKKANAD, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.54/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 05.12.2023, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -17- # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1945** **CRP NO. 66 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP(ELE) 74/2019 OF ADDITIONAL** **DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** V.CHANDRAN AGED 63 YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AKHILALAYAM HOUSE, AIMURY KARA, ELAMBAKAPILLY P.O., KAYYUTHIYAL, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 544. BY ADVS. VAISAKHI V BABU KARUKAPADATH(B-13) M.A.VAHEEDA BABU(V-4) P.U.VINOD KUMAR(K/647/2002) ARYA RAGHUNATH(K/000474/2018) T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ(K/000261/2018) AJWIN P LALSON(K/001394/2018) KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU(MAH/8319/2019) P.LAKSHMI(K/001868/2021) AYSHA E.M.(K/001130/2022) SHIFANA KAISE(K/001171/2023) ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 400 KV SUB STATION, PALLIKARA, KIZHAKAMBALAM VILKLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PIN-683 565, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -18- 2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., MAVELIPURAM HOUSING COLONY, EDASSERY HOME OPPOSITE CORPORATION BANK, KAKKANAD, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.54/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 05.12.2023, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -19- # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1945** **CRP NO. 68 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP(ELE) 75/2019 OF ADDITIONAL** **DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** BENNY ANTONY AGED 52 YEARS S/O.ANTONY, KALLICKAKAM HOUSE, AIMURY KARA, ELAMBAKAPILLY P.O., KAYYUITHIYAL, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 544. BY ADVS. VAISAKHI V BABU KARUKAPADATH(B-13) M.A.VAHEEDA BABU(V-4) P.U.VINOD KUMAR(K/647/2002) ARYA RAGHUNATH(K/000474/2018) T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ(K/000261/2018) AJWIN P LALSON(K/001394/2018) KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU(MAH/8319/2019) P.LAKSHMI(K/001868/2021) AYSHA E.M.(K/001130/2022) SHIFANA KAISE(K/001171/2023) 1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., 400 KV SUB STATION, PALLIKARA, KIZHAKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PIN-683 565, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., MAVBELIPURAM HOUSING COLONY, EDASSERY HOME ## **RESPONDENT/S:** CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -20- OPPOSITE CORPORATION BANK, KAKKANAD, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.54/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 05.12.2023, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -21- # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1945** **CRP NO. 73 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP(ELE) 76/2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** P.S NARAYANAN S/O.SANKARAN, PEECHAMPILLY HOUSE, AIMURY KARA, ELAMBAKAPILLY P.O., KAYYUTHIYAL, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683 544. BY ADVS. VAISAKHI V BABU KARUKAPADATH(B-13) M.A.VAHEEDA BABU(V-4) P.U.VINOD KUMAR(K/647/2002) ARYA RAGHUNATH(K/000474/2018) T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ(K/000261/2018) AJWIN P LALSON(K/001394/2018) KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU(MAH/8319/2019) P.LAKSHMI(K/001868/2021) AYSHA E.M.(K/001130/2022) SHIFANA KAISE(K/001171/2023) ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD 400 KV SUB STATION, PALLIKARA, KIZHAKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PIN - 683 565, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., MAVELIPURAM HOUSING COLONY, EDASSERY HOME CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -22- OPPOSITE CORPORATION BANK, KAKKANAD, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 030. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.54/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 05.12.2023, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -23- **“CR”** ## **ORDER** Dated this the 05[th] day of December, 2023 The revision petitioners are aggrieved by the dismissal of original petitions filed by them seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded for the damages sustained due to the drawing of High Tension Electric Lines over their properties by the first respondent Corporation. The original petitions were dismissed for the reason that they were filed after three years of receipt of compensation and are hence barred by limitation. 2. Adv.Babu Karukapadath appearing for the revision petitioners contended that the reasons stated in the impugned order are factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. It is submitted that during 2010-11 compensation towards the value of trees cut alone was paid and CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -24- the compensation towards diminution in land value was paid only during 2017-2018. The revision petitioners had approached the District Court in 2019 dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation paid towards diminution in land value within the three year period stipulated in Article 137. Drawing attention to the words ' _if any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under Section 10_ ', it is argued that a dispute regarding sufficiency of compensation can arise only on payment of the full compensation, which, in the case of the revision petitioners, had occurred only in 2017/2018. The finding of the District Judge that the original petitions are barred by limitation, the trees having been cut in 2010-11 and the original petitions being filed only in 2019, is assailed by pointing out that even though the trees were cut in 2011, the posts were erected, towers constructed and lines drawn much later. CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -25- The value of the property having diminished by the series of acts committed by the first respondent, time would start to run from the last of those acts, the land owners being entitled to compensation ' _for any damage sustained_ '. 3. The finding in the impugned order that the payment made in the year 2017/2018 is not compensation, but ' _ex gratia'_ payment by the Government, is refuted by referring to the notices issued to the revision petitioners requiring them to collect the compensation ordered towards land value. 4. Adv.Millu Dandapani appearing for the first respondent submitted that the impugned orders warrant no interference, the reasons stated therein being well founded. It is contended that the payment in 2017/2018 was an _ex_ _gratia_ payment at the rate of 20% of the land, for the land area covered under the conductors CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -26- (lines). The payment was not made by the first respondent Corporation, but by the Government as per the Government order (G.O(Rt) No.581/2010/RD dated 04.02.2010). Therefore, the _ex gratia_ payment cannot be termed as 'compensation'. Being so, the period of three years is to be calculated from the date of cutting of trees. The original petitions, having been filed much after three years from the cutting of trees, were rightly dismissed by the District Court. 5. From the contentions advanced, the question arising for consideration is whether the period stipulated under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 had expired by the time the original petitions were filed. In order to answer this question, it is essential to understand the scheme of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('the Act' for short), with respect to payment of compensation to affected persons. CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -27- **==> picture [380 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** Central Government is having the exclusive privilege of establishing, maintaining and working telegraphs. The proviso to Section 4(1) empowers the Central Government to grant licence to any person to establish, maintain or work a telegraph within any part of India. By virtue of Section 19B, the Central Government can confer upon the licensee under Section 4, all or any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses. The first respondent Corporation issued with licence under the proviso to Section 4(1) and conferred powers as per Section 19B. As per Section 10, the Telegraph Authority can place and maintain a telegraph line under, over or across, any immovable property. It is in exercise of such power that the first respondent entered the properties of the revision petitioners, cut down trees, drew lines over and installed posts/towers in the properties of the revision CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -28- petitioners. 7. In this context, Section 10(d), as per which the telegraph authority should endeavour to do as little damage as possible to the property and pay full compensation for 'any damage' sustained, assumes relevance. By using the terminology 'any damage' the legislature has consciously widened the landowners' right to claim compensation. The compensation for damage sustained is therefore not confined to the initial cutting of trees and drawing of lines. If the telegraph authority does any further work in the property after drawing the lines and such action results in the landowner sustaining damage, he can claim compensation, even if he was paid compensation for the damage sustained earlier. The above reasoning is supported by the concept of continuing cause of action, whereby a cause action once arisen will continue and go on, if the act complained of is continuously CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -29- repeated. Yet another reason being that, every work done in a person’s property by another without permission, infringes upon the owner's right to enjoy his property without let or hindrance. 8. As held by this Court in _**KSEB v.**_ _**Cheriyan Varghese [1989 (1) KLT 451]**_ ), the landowners are entitled to claim compensation for the value of trees cut as well as diminution of land value. If the land owners are not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the authority, they have to approach the District Court under Section 16(3) of the Act. Being contextually relevant, Section 16(3) is extracted hereunder; “ _16(3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10, clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated, be determined by him.”_ CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -30- No time limit for filing original petition before the District Court under Section 16(3) is stipulated in the Indian Telegraph Act or the Limitation Act. The Apex Court in _**Kerala State Electricity Board v T.P. Kunhaliumma [(1976) 4**_ _**SCC 634]**_ has held that such original petitions are in effect applications falling within the scope of Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Hence, the land owners can approach the District Court under Section 16(3) within three years of accrual of their right to apply. Here, the revision petitioners were initially paid compensation only for the value of trees cut. They and owners of similarly affected lands protested against the failure to grant compensation for diminution of land value and prevented the first respondent Corporation from drawing lines across their properties. As completion of the work at the earliest would benefit the State by securing CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -31- power from the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Station, the Government of Kerala intervened in the matter and issued G.O(Rt)No.581/2010/RD dated 04.02.2010, fixing compensation for damage caused at the tower location and _ex gratia_ payment towards land value for the land area falling under the line. As the land owners were not satisfied with the Government’s offer, they continued the protest. Finally, the Government came out with G.O.(Ms) No.29/2015/PD dated 30.07.2015, declaring a special compensation package exclusively for the construction of 400 KV transmission line in the Edamon-Kochi sector. Going by the Government order, the compensation and _ex gratia_ payment are to be shared between the Government of Kerala, KSEB and the first respondent Corporation. 9. The terminology used in the Government order being _ex gratia_ payment for the line CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -32- corridor, the first respondent contends that the payments made in 2017/2018 is _ex gratia_ payment and not compensation. To address this argument, it is essential to understand the meaning of the terms 'compensation', ' _ex gratia_ ' and ' _ex gratia_ payment'. The meaning of the aforementioned terms as shown in the 6[th] Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, are as under; “ _**Compensation:** Indemnification; payment of_ _damages; making amends; making whole; giving an equivalent or substitute of equal value. That which is necessary to restore an injured party to his former position. Remuneration for services rendered, whether in salary, fees, or commissions. Consideration or price of a privilege purchased._ _Equivalent in money for a loss sustained; equivalent given for property taken or for an injury done to another; giving back an equivalent in either money which is but the measure of value, or in actual value otherwise conferred; recompense in value; recompense or reward for some loss, injury, or service, especially when it is given by_ CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -33- _statute; remuneration for the injury directly and proximately caused by a breach of contract or duty; remuneration or satisfaction for injury or damage of every description (including medical expenses). An act which a court orders to be done, or money which a court or other tribunal orders to be paid, by a person whose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury to another, in order that thereby the person damnified may receive equal value for his loss, or be made whole in respect of his injury. Hughson Condensed Milk Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 23 Cal.App.2d 281, 73 P.2d 290, 292._ _**Ex gratia:** Out of grace; as a matter of grace, favor, or indulgence; gratuitous. A term applied to anything accorded as a favor; as distinguished from that which may be demanded ex debito, as a matter of right._ _**Ex gratia payment:** Payment made by one who recognizes no legal obligation to pay but who makes payment to avoid greater expense as in the case of a settlement by an insurance company to avoid costs of suit. A payment without legal consideration.”_ Thus, the term 'compensation' takes in payment of CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -34- compensation necessary for restoring any injured party to his former position. On the other hand, _ex gratia_ payment is made by one who recognises no legal obligation to pay, but makes the payment to avoid greater expense. In short, _ex gratia_ payment is payment without legal consideration. 10. Indisputably, the revision petitioners are conferred with the statutory right to claim compensation under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act. As such, they could have demanded the compensation _ex debito._ In this context, it is also essential to note that the Government, while coming out with the special compensation package, was conscious of the landowners' right to claim compensation under the Act. That right cannot be taken away by terming the payment, towards diminution of land value, as ex gratia payment. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, it can unhesitatingly be held that the payment CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -35- made towards diminution of land value, even if termed as ' _ex gratia_ payment', is nothing but ‘compensation’. 11. Yet another crucial factor emerging from G.O.(Ms) No.29/2015/PD dated 30.07.2015 is that the drawing of lines in the Edamon-Kochi sector could be resumed only after payment of compensation in 2017/2018. Being so, the landowners’ right to apply for compensation can be based on the damage sustained during such work. Viewed in that manner also, the original petitions were filed within time. 12. While on the question of limitation, it is essential to note that the three year period mentioned in Article 137 will begin to run from the date when the right to apply accrued. In _**Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd v Central Bank of**_ _**India and another [(2020) 17 SCC 260],**_ the Apex Court compared Article 113 in the First Division CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -36- of the Schedule of the Limitation Act dealing with suits, with the expression used in other Articles, to hold as under; “ _17. The expression used in Article 113 of the 1963 Act is “when the right to sue accrues”, which is markedly distinct from the expression used in other Articles in First Division of the Schedule dealing with suits, which unambiguously refer to the happening of a specified event. Whereas, Article 113 being a residuary clause and which has been invoked by all the three courts in this case, does not specify happening of particular event as such, but merely refers to the accrual of cause of action on the basis of which the right to sue would accrue.”_ While Article 113 is with respect to suits for which there is no prescribed period, Article 137 is the residuary provision in the Third Division, dealing with applications other than those in specified cases. The above discussion leads to CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -37- the conclusion that the right to apply, as far as the revision petitioners are concerned, would accrue when the property sustained damage by cutting of trees or any further act resulting in the property sustaining damage. Their right to apply would also accrue when the compensation paid is inadequate. Hence, the revision petitioners could have filed the original petitions before the District Court, within three years of commission of the last act resulting in damage or three years from the date of payment of compensation. In the cases under consideration, neither of these instances, giving rise to the right to apply, was considered by the District Court. On the other hand, the period of limitation was calculated based on the date of cutting of trees. The court below ought to have also taken into account the cardinal principle that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties, but to ensure that CRP Nos.48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 68 & 73 of 2021 -38- the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics or sleep over their rights. In the cases under consideration, neither was any dilatory tactic adopted by the revision petitioners nor did they sleep over their rights. Being so, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. In the result, the civil revision petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside, finding the original petitions to have been filed within time. These matters are remitted to the court below for fresh consideration on merits. The court below shall make earnest efforts to dispose of the original petitions at the earliest. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/