M.P. Balakrishnan v Power Grid Corporation of India Construction Area Office; CRP Nos. 376 of 2021 and 313 of 2022

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946** ## **CRP NO. 376 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.545 OF 2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **M.P. BALAKRISHNAN AGED 60 YEARS S/O.PARAN, MONDOLI HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM PO., KARUKUTTY ALUVA** **BY ADV P.T.JOSE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, KAKKANAD, NOW IN PAO/400, 220KV SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKARA, KOCHI 682 303, REP.BY DEPUTY MANAGER** - **2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA, CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, NOW NEAR CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 030** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 030** - **4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **K.P.HARISHSR.GP.A.ARUN KUMAR SC,PRAVEEN K,JOY.** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.313/2022, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 of 2022 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946** **CRP NO. 313 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.545 OF 2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682 030, PRESENTLY AT CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, 400/220, KV SUB STATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O, PALLIKKARA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER, PIN - 683565** **BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 M P BALAKRISHNAN AGED 53 YEARS S/O PARAN, MUNDOLI HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM PO, KARUKUTTY, ALUVA, PIN - 683576** - **2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017** - **3 STATE OF KERALA , REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682030** - **4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - KSEB REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 BY ADV P.T.JOSE** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.376/2021, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 of 2022 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 21[st] day of May, 2024 These revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P.(Electricity) No.545 of 2013. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.376 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 16.90 Ares in Sy.Nos.198/8 and 198/12 of Karukutty Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 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.2,03,968/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.A5 CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 of 2022 **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** document as well as Exts.C1 and C1(a) commission report and plan. The Advocate Commissioner reported that the claimant's property is situated in a residential area. It is also reported that a canal road having width of 3-4 metres passes through the southern side of the property. Similarly, the Palissery Higher Secondary School and Government Hospital are situated at a distance of half a kilometre from the petition schedule property. Moreover, St.George Church and Naipunniya Public School are situated at a distance of 750 metres and about 1 Km, respectively. The court below also took note of the fact that while the property in Ext.A5 document is having public road access on two sides, a canal road passes through the southern side of the petition schedule property. Based on the said factors, the court below fixed the land value of the claimant's property at Rs.1,80,063/per cent, by deducting 20% of the land value of the property involved in Ext.A5 document. Relying CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 of 2022 -6- on Ext.C1(a) plan, the extent of central corridor was held to be 9.068 cents (6.425 + 2.643) and that of the outer corridors, 16.505 cents (9.760 + 6.745). For the central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for outer corridors, 20% of the land value. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.12,47,511/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.376 of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.313 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 CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 of 2022 -7- loss. It is submitted that the the claimant's property is situated in a residential area and a canal road having width of 3-4 metres passes through the southern side of the property. Similarly, the Palissery Higher Secondary School and Government Hospital are situated at a distance of half a kilometre from the petition schedule property. Moreover, St.George Church and Naipunniya Public School are situated at a distance of 750 metres and about 1 Km, respectively. Without considering these crucial factors, 20% deduction was made from the land value of the property involved in Ext.A5 document. 5. It is further submitted that the court below grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land value for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridors. According to the learned Counsel, considering the extent of damage sustained and the diminution in land value consequent to the drawing of lines, the court CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 of 2022 -8- below ought to have granted compensation as claimed. 6. Learned Counsel for the Corporation contended that the compensation granted towards diminution in land value is exorbitant and there is no rationale in granting 9% interest on that amount. The court below also erred in relying on Ext.A5 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 corridors 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 in the absence of any supporting material other than the findings in the Advocate Commissioner's report. As found by the court below, apart from the interested testimony of CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 of 2022 -9- the claimant, no other independent witness was examined. The court below also took note of the fact that the trees had been cut and removed in the year 2011, whereas the Commissioner inspected the property in the year 2015. Therefore, the court below rightly refused to accept the assessment made by the Commissioner, which was based on an overview of the remaining trees in the petition schedule and neighbouring properties. Hence, it was rightly held by the court below that the evidence let in by the claimant is not sufficient to discard the contemporaneous valuation statement prepared by the Corporation. 8. For fixing the compensation payable towards diminution in land value, 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_ CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 of 2022 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** _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, in the case at hand, the compensation was fixed 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. Based on the above factors and a comparison of the petition schedule property with the property involved in Ext.A5, the court below fixed the land value at Rs.1,80,063/- per cent, viz; 20% less than the CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 of 2022 **==> picture [25 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** value shown in Ext.A5 document, which according to me, is reasonable. Similarly, the discretion was properly exercised by the court below in granting 40% of the land value as compensation for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridors. 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 CRP Nos.376 of 2021 and 313 of 2022 **==> picture [25 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** 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 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/