High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-04-23CRP dismissed; order of the District Court/ Low...

Power Grid Corporation of India Construction Area Office, Mavelipuram Colony, Kakkanad, Kochi v. Karthiyayini W/o. K. A. Kuttapan and others

Case / Petition Number:CRP No. 259 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V. G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2024-04-23
Court Decision / Holding: The civil revision petition filed by the Corporation is dismissed.
Final Disposition: CRP dismissed; order of the District Court/ Lower court maintained.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Power Grid Corporation of India Construction Area Office, Mavelipuram Colony, Kakkanad, Kochi - 682 030, Presently at Construction Area Office, 400/220 KV Sub Station, Kumarpuram P.O, Pallikkara, Ernakulam

Respondents

Karthiyayini W/o. K. A Kuttapan
Suresh S/o K. A Kuttapan
Raji D/o K. A Kuttapan
The Special Tahsildar (LA) Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Chevarambalam, Kozhikode

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv Millu Dandapani

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv P.T. Jose Abrem
• Adv K. Joy

Case Synopsis & Summary

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. challenged an order enhancing compensation for land value diminution due to the construction of a 400 KV line across the party respondents’ property in Karukutty Village, Aluva Taluk. The claimants (respondents 1–3) owned about 26 cents, with land used for cultivation and trees. The corporation had paid only Rs. 1,16,898 toward trees; no compensation was granted for diminution in land value. The trial court rejected the claim for enhanced compensation for trees for lack of independent evidence beyond an Advocate Commissioner’s report, and, for land value diminution, it relied on Ext. A5 along with Exts. C13 and C13(a) commission report and sketch, deducting 20% from Ext. A5 and determining central corridor at 40% and outer corridors at 20%, resulting in Rs. 4,70,720 to the claimants. Counsel for the Corporation argued that this diminution is exorbitant, that reliance on Ext. A5 is flawed, and that drawing lines with agriculture or small structures should not trigger such high compensation; that government valuation guidelines should not bind judicial computation, and that 9% interest on the land value is unwarranted. Counsel for the claimants contended the enhancement was properly granted after weighing all relevant factors. The High Court, applying the factors from KSEB v. Livisha and upholding the approach in V.V. Jayaram, dismissed the revision petition, finding no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Civil Procedure, Section 115

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Not bound by Government guidelines or orders in assessing damages
Owner may lose his substantive right to use the property
Situs of the land, distance to high voltage lines, extent of the line, and other relevant factors determine land value and diminution (as per KSEB v. Livisha)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Learned Counsel for the Power Grid Corporation contended that the impugned order enhances compensation for diminution in land value is exorbitant and lacks rational basis, especially since 9% interest on the enhanced amount is unjustifiable. The Corporation argued that reliance on Ext. A5 to determine land value is erroneous; drawing of 400 KV lines does not prevent owners from agriculture or constructing small structures, yet the lower court fixed 40% of the land value for the central corridor and 20% for outer corridors, which the Corporation challenged as excessive. It also argued that government fair-value guidelines cannot bind the court, and the Commissioner’s contemporaneous valuation and Ext. A5 findings should be given more weight. It contends that the court below erred in treating Ext. C13 and C13(a) as decisive without proper evidence. In sum, the Petitioner seeks reduction of the land-value diminution and reversal of the 9% interest, urging a more conservative, evidence-based computation consistent with the principles in KSEB v. Livisha.

Contentions of Respondents

Learned Counsel for the claimants argued that the enhancement was granted after considering all relevant factors, including the property's nature, the extent of the corridor, and the impact on cultivation, as recorded by the Advocate Commissioner and corroborated by Ext. C13(a) sketch. They maintain that the court below rightly assessed land value diminution by applying reasonable percentages (40% central corridor, 20% outer corridors) and that the 9% interest reflects the actual loss suffered. They claim the petition schedule property’s proximity to amenities and transport merely supports the award's reasonableness, and that Ext. A5, Ext. C13, and Ext. C13(a) were properly weighed. They emphasize that the petition schedule property’s value must be determined by considering the temporary impediments to use caused by the 400 KV lines, and that the trial court's assessment aligns with established precedents and the facts of the case.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
KSEB v. Livisha	[(2007) 6 SCC 792]	Positive	Court relied on the factors set out in KSEB v. Livisha to assess diminution in land value when land is affected by high-tension lines.
V.V. Jayaram v Kerala State Electricity Board	[2015 (3) KHC 453]	Positive	Court cited it to justify allowing 9% interest on the enhanced compensation.

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 Power Grid Corporation of India Construction Area Office, Mavelipuram Colony, Kakkanad, Kochi v. Karthiyayini W/o. K. A. Kuttapan and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **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. 259 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.121 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 KARTHIYAYINI W/O. K. A KUTTAPAN, AGED 84 YEARS, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE, PADHUVAPURAM, PALLISSERRY, KARUKKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, PIN - 683544** - **2 SURESH S/O K. A KUTTAPAN, AGED 58 YEARS, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE, PADHUVAPURAM, PALLISSERRY, KARUKKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK ., PIN - 683544** - **3 RAJI D/O K. A KUTTAPAN, AGED 54 YEARS, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE, PADHUVAPURAM, PALLISSERRY, KARUKKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK ., PIN - 683544** - **4 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE ., PIN - 673017 BY ADVS. P.T.JOSE ABREM K. JOY(K/000993/2023)** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **GP B.S.SYAMANTHAK;** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **18.01.2024, THE COURT ON 23.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP No.259 of 2022 -2- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 23[rd] day of April, 2024 The revision petitioner, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd ('the Corporation' for short), is aggrieved by the enhanced compensation ordered to be paid to respondents 1 to 3 ('the claimants' for short) towards diminution in land value, consequent upon the drawing of 400 KV electric lines across their property by the Corporation. The essential facts are as under; The claimants are in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 26 cents comprised in Sy.No.190/1 of Karukutty Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the claimants, to facilitate drawing of the lines and smooth transmission of power, large number of trees were cut from their property. The drawing CRP No.259 of 2022 -3- 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 claimants, only Rs.1,16,898/- 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.C13 and C13(a) commission report and sketch. The Advocate CRP No.259 of 2022 -4- Commissioner reported that the petition schedule property is situated at a distance of 400 metres from the Government Higher Secondary School and Government Hospital. It is also reported that the petition schedule property lies at a distance of 750 metres from St.George Church and 1 Km from Naipunniya Public School. The court below also took note of the fact that the petition schedule property is situated at a distance of 100 metres from the Karukutty Palissery Munnoorpilly Road, which is a bus route and a canal road passes through the southern side of the property. Based on the said factors, the court below fixed the land value of the petition schedule property by deducting 20% of the value shown in Ext.A5 document. Relying on Ext.C13(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor was held to be 3.953 cents and that of the outer corridors, 5.165 cents (2.595+2.570). For the central corridor, CRP No.259 of 2022 -5- 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for outer corridors, 20% of the land value. Accordingly, the claimants were found entitled to compensation of Rs.4,70,720/-. 3. Heard Adv.Millu Dandapani for the Corporation and Adv.P.T.Jose for the claimants. 4. 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 amount. The court below also erred in relying on Ext.A5 for fixing the land value of the claimants' property. As drawing of electric lines does not prohibit the landowners from conducting agricultural activities and putting up small structures, 40% of the land value granted for central corridor and 20% for the outer corridors are exorbitant. Per contra, learned Counsel for the claimants argued that the CRP No.259 of 2022 -6- enhancement was granted after considering all relevant factors. 5. 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 witness, who is the claimant in some of the connected cases, no other independent witnesses were examined. Indisputably, the trees were cut and removed in the year 2011 and the Commissioner inspected the property in the year 2015. The court below also took note of the fact that the Commissioner had assessed the value of trees based on an overview of the trees standing in the nearby properties. Such assessment, having no scientific basis, is CRP No.259 of 2022 -7- not sufficient to discard the contemporaneous valuation statement prepared by the Corporation. 6. 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 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 CRP No.259 of 2022 -8- 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 has deducted 20% of the land value of the property in Ext.A5 document, which according to me, is reasonable. Similarly, discretion was properly exercised by the court below in granting 40% of the land value as compensation for central corridor and 20% for the outer corridors. 7. 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 CRP No.259 of 2022 -9- 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 revision petition filed by the Corporation is dismissed. ## **Sd/-** **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/