## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN**
**FRIDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945**
## **CRP NO. 109 OF 2022**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 562/2013 OF VI**
**ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM**
## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:**
**P.O.JOSE AGED 71 YEARS**
**S/O.OUSEPH, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM, ALUVA – 683 576**
**BY ADV P.T.JOSE**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
- **1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030, NOW IN PAO/400, 200KV SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM PO, PALLIKARA, KOCHI-682303, REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.**
- **2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LT, CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 017, NOW IN THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KAKKANAD, PO682030.**
- **3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682030.**
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
**SC FOR KSEB B.PREMOD; SR.GP.PREETHA K.K. GP SYLAJA S.L.**
**THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.260/2022, THE COURT ON 16.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
CRP Nos.109 & 260 of 2022
-2-
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN**
**FRIDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945**
**CRP NO. 260 OF 2022**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 562/2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM**
## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:**
**POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 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 P.O JOSE AGED 72 YEARS S/O OUSEPH , PUTHUSSERRY HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM, MUKKANNUR, 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 ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ., PIN – 695001**
CRP Nos.109 & 260 of 2022
-3-
**BY ADVS. P.T.JOSE S.ASHITHA(K/000357/2018) ALTHAF P.A.(K/000535/2022) ABEY AUGUSTINE(K/000923/2022)**
**THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.109/2022, THE COURT ON 16.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
CRP Nos.109 & 260 of 2022
-4-
## **ORDER**
Dated this the 16[th] day of February, 2024
These revision petitions are filed challenging the common order passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P. (Electricity) No.562 of 2013. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.109 of 2022 (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 13.34 Ares comprised in Sy.No.125/8 of Mukkannur Village in
CRP Nos.109 & 260 of 2022
-5-
Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. 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.33,103/- 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
CRP Nos.109 & 260 of 2022
-6-
compensation towards diminution in land value is concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A5 document as well as Exts.C7 and C7(a) commission report and sketch. The Advocate Commissioner reported that claimant's property lies 500 metres away from SNDP Junction and 1.5 Km from Tabor Junction and SCMS College. Moreover, a Government Hospital and a Milk Society are also seen in close proximity to his property. Based on these factors, the court below fixed the land value of the claimant's property by deducting 20% of the value shown in Ext.A5 property. Relying on Ext.C7(a) sketch, it was found that no electric line was drawn over the claimant's property and only the outer corridor passes through 2 cents of the property. For outer corridor, 20% of the land value was granted as compensation. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.72,025/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.109 of
CRP Nos.109 & 260 of 2022
-7-
2022, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.260 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 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
CRP Nos.109 & 260 of 2022
-8-
later. It is submitted that claimant's property is situated 500 metres away from SNDP Junction and 1.5 Km away from Tabor Junction and SCMS College. Moreover, a Government Hospital and a Milk Society are situated in close proximity to the claimant's property. Without considering these crucial factors, 20% deduction was made from the value of the property involved in Ext.A5 document.
5. It is submitted that the court below
grossly erred in granting only 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 exorbitant and there is no rationale in granting 9% interest on that
CRP Nos.109 & 260 of 2022
-9-
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, 20% for the outer corridor is 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 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
CRP Nos.109 & 260 of 2022
**==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==**
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
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_
CRP Nos.109 & 260 of 2022
-11-
_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 deducted only 20%
of the land value in Ext.A5, which according to me, is a reasonable deduction. 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 petitions filed by the claimant as well
CRP Nos.109 & 260 of 2022
-12-
as the Corporation are dismissed. The Power Grid Corporation shall pay the enhanced compensation fixed by the court below within three months of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
**V.G.ARUN JUDGE**
Scl/
