## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN**
**MONDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 30TH MAGHA, 1945**
## **CRP NO. 102 OF 2022**
**AGAINST THE ORDER OPELE 586/2013 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-VI, ERNAKULAM**
## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:**
P M YACOB (BABY) AGED 77 YEARS S/O. MATHAI, PLACHERI HOUSE, THABOR P.O, MUKKANNUR, ALUVA - 683577. BY ADV P.T.JOSE
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682030, NOW IN PAO/400, 22O KV, SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O, PALLIKKARA, KOCHI - 682303, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER. 2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA), POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673017, NOW IN THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KAKKANAD P.O, 682030. 3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682030. 4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -6 95001.
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
SRI.K.P.HARISH-SR.GP.,
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.01.2024, THE COURT ON 19.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP No.102 of 2022
-2-
## **ORDER**
Dated this the 19[th] day of February, 2024
This revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P.(Electricity) No.586 of 2013. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner 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 petitioner is in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 13.34 Ares comprised in Sy.No.613/B of Mukkannur Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the petitioner, to facilitate drawing of the lines and smooth transmission of power, large
CRP No.102 of 2022
-3-
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 petitioner, only an amount of Rs.24,148/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 document as well as Exts.C10 and C10(a) commission report and sketch. The Advocate
CRP No.102 of 2022
-4-
Commissioner reported that the petitioner's property is situated 500 metres away from Poothamkuty-Angamaly road which is a bus route and is in close proximity to the Poothamkutty Service Co-operative Bank. Moreover, Palissery Government Hospital and Government Higher Secondary School are also situated at a distance of 2.5 Km from the petitioner's property. Based on these factors, the court below fixed the land value of the petitioner's property at Rs.1,80,063/- per cent, which is equivalent to 80% land value of the property involved in Ext.A5 document. Relying on Ext.C10(a) sketch, the
extent of central corridor was held to be 1.408 cents and of the outer corridor, 6.276 cents. For the central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for the outer corridor, 20% of the land value. Accordingly, the petitioner was found entitled to compensation of Rs.3,27,426/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, this civil revision petition is
CRP No.102 of 2022
-5-
filed.
3. Heard Adv.P.T.Jose for the petitioner and Adv.Millu Dandapani for the Corporation.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
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 loss. The findings in the Commissioner's report were not relied on by the court below for the reason that the property was inspected much after the trees were cut. The said reasoning is flawed since the trees were cut much after issuance of notification by the Corporation and the cause of action for filing the original petition arose only on payment of the initial compensation, even later. It is submitted that the petitioner's property is situated 500 metres away from Poothamkuty-Angamaly road which is a bus route and is in close proximity to Poothamkutty Service
CRP No.102 of 2022
-6-
Co-operative Bank. Moreover, Palissery Government Hospital and Government Higher Secondary School are also situated at a distance of 2.5 Km from the petitioner's property. Without considering these crucial factors, the land value of the property is fixed as Rs.1,80,063/- only.
5. It is submitted that the court below grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land value fixed for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridor. 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 diminution in land value granted is even otherwise exorbitant and the drawing of electric lines does not prohibit the landowner from conducting agricultural activities and putting up small structures.
CRP No.102 of 2022
-7-
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 since no supporting material, other than the findings in the Advocate Commissioner's report, was made available. As found by the court below, apart from the interested testimony of a solitary witness, who is the claimant in some of the connected cases, no other independent witness was examined to prove the claim. It is also not in dispute that the trees were cut in the year 2011 and the
commissioner inspected the property in the year
2015 and assessed the value of the trees on a
comparison with the trees standing in the nearby properties. Such comparison, having no scientific
basis, is not sufficient to discard the
contemporaneous valuation statement prepared by the Corporation.
8. As far as the diminution in land value is concerned, the factors to be taken into
CRP No.102 of 2022
-8-
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 enhanced 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 have all been considered for fixing the land value as well as the percentage of diminution. The court below has fixed the land
CRP No.102 of 2022
-9-
value at Rs.1,80,063/- which is equivalent to 80% land value of the property involved in Ext.A5 document, which according to me, is reasonable. For the central corridor, 40% of the land value is granted as compensation and for the outer corridor, 20% is granted, which I find to be just and proper. 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
revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
**V.G.ARUN JUDGE**
Scl/
