N.K. Madhavan Nair v Power Grid Corporation of India Construction Area Office and Others (CRP Nos. 387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946** ## **CRP NO. 387 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.64 OF 2015 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **N.K.MADHAVAN NAIR AGED 63 YEARS S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR, NEDUMPURATHU HOUSE, ELAMBAKAPILLY P.O., KOOVAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR. 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.) POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, NOW IN KAKKANAD P.O. - 682 030 NEAR CIVIL STATION.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 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:** **sr.gp.v.tekchand; GP B.S.SYAMANTHAK sc for kseb a.arunkumar** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON09.04.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.47/2022, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946** **CRP NO. 47 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 12.02.2021 IN OPELE NO.64 OF 2015 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 683565 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER** **BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 N.K.MADHAVAN NAIR AGED 70 YEARS S/O. PADMANABHAN NAIR, NEDUMPURATH HOUSE, ELAMBAKAPILLY P.O, KOOVAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR 683544** - **2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CHEVARAMBALAM PO, KOZHIKODE-673 017.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESNTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 030.** - **4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD., VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.** - **5 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CHEVERAMBALAM P.O, KOZHIKODE 673 017** - **6 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682 030** - **7 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - KSEB** CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022 -3- **REPRENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD, VAIDYUTHI BHAWAN, PATTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004 BY ADVS. P.T.JOSE R.HARISHANKAR** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON09.04.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.47/2022, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022 -4- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 23[rd] 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.64 of 2015. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.387 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 40.4 Ares in Resurvey No.379/3/1 of Koovappady Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022 -5- 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.1,47,760/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.73,380/- towards the value of trees cut. As far as the claim for CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022 -6- enhanced compensation towards diminution in land value is concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A4 document as well as Exts.C3 and C3(a) commission report and plan. The Advocate Commissioner reported that the petition schedule property is situated on the southern side of the Korumbaserry road. The court below took note of the fact that Ext.A4 document was executed one year after the trees were cut and removed from the claimant's property. Based on the said factors, the court below fixed the land value of the claimant's property at Rs.1,53,000/- per cent, by deducting 10% of the land value of the property involved in Ext.A4 document. Relying on Ext.C3(a) plan, the court below found that no electric lines were drawn across the claimant's property and only the outer corridor admeasuring 9.983 cents passes through the side of the property. For the outer corridor, 20% of the land value was granted as compensation. The court below also took note of the fact that, the outer CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022 **==> picture [19 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** corridor passes through the side of the property without affecting the remaining petition schedule property. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.3,05,479/- towards diminution in land value. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.387 of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.47 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 trees, in spite of the Advocate Commissioner assessing and reporting the loss. It is submitted that the claimant's property is situated on the southern side of the Korumbassery road. Without CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022 **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** properly considering this crucial factor, the land value of the property is fixed as only Rs.1,53,000/- per cent. 5. It is further submitted that the court below grossly erred in granting only 20% of the land value for the outer corridor and refusing to grant anything towards the remaining property. 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 Corporation contended that, compensation towards the value of 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 no electric lines were drawn across the petition schedule property and there is no prohibition on the landowner from conducting agricultural activities CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022 **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** and putting up small structures, 20% of land value granted for the outer corridor is exorbitant. 7. The court below had awarded 50% of the compensation already granted as additional compensation, 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_ CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** _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 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/-, taking into account the fact that Ext.A4 document was executed one year after the trees were cut and removed from the claimant's property, which according to me, is reasonable. The discretion was properly exercised in granting 20% of the land value as compensation for the outer corridor. The claim for compensation towards remaining property was also CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022 **==> picture [25 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** rightly rejected, on finding that the outer corridor passes through a side of the property without affecting the remaining portion. 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 CRP Nos.387 of 2021 and 47 of 2022 **==> picture [25 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** 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/