Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Anida, Abida and Achin D.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2014/10TH SRAVANA, 1936 CRP.No. 59 of 2011 (E ) ----------------------- OP(ELE) 157/2004 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., A BODY CORPORATE HAVING ITS MANAGERS OFFICE AT 32, HORSE RACES ROAD, BANGALORE AND DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGERS OFFICE AT PADMASREE, PONGUMOOD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL REVENUE OFFICER(COMPENSATION), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, PONGUMOOD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. ANIDA, D/O. DAMODARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT TC 11/13, PLAMOODU, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 2. ABIDA, D/O. DAMODARAN, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-, PIN-695 004. 3. ACHIN D., S/O. DAMODARAN, AGED 38 YRS, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-, PIN-695 004. R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.M.S.KALESH R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.HARISH GOPINATH R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.V.VINAY MENON R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SMT.A.V.PRIYA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-08-2014, ALONG WITH C.R.P. No.94/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: okb ## **K.HARILAL, J.** **_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _** ## **C.R.P. Nos.59 and 94 of 2011** **_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _** Dated this the 1[st] day of August, 2014 ## **ORDER** These revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed in O.P.(Ele.) No.157/04 on the files of the Additional District Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioners in C.R.P. No.94/11 are the petitioners in the above O.P. and the petitioners in CRP No.59/11 are the respondents therein. The parties are referred to as in the original petition. 2. The above O.P. was filed by the petitioners under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, r/w Section 42 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, claiming compensation for the damages caused by the cutting and removal of trees and drawing of 400 KV electric transmission lines from Madhura to Thiruvananthapuram over the petitioners' property. The respondents have given Rs.85,367/- as compensation for the damages caused by the cutting and removal of trees. No amount had been given for the diminution of land value caused by the drawing of electric lines. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred the above O.P. and _**CRPs.59 & 94 of 2011**_ **:2:** after considering the evidence on record, the court below granted an additional compensation of Rs.1,25,958/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of cutting of the trees till realisation. C.R.P.No.94/11 is filed challenging the determination of compensation on the ground that the additional compensation granted by the court below is inadequate and disproportionate with the actual loss suffered by the petitioners. C.R.P.No.59/11 is filed by the respondents on the ground that the additional compensation granted by the court below is excessive and unjustifiable. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners advanced arguments challenging the findings of the court below and the learned counsel for the respondents advanced arguments to substantiate their contention that the compensation granted by the court below is excessive. The The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the rate of annuity fixed by the court below is not in accordance with the decision of the Apex Court in **Airport Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy (AIR 2002 SC 1423)** . The court below has not considered Exts.A1 to A14 in its correct perspective. The Commissioner has reported that the extent of affected area would come to 1 Acre and 50 cents. But the court below has taken an extent of 36 cents only as _**CRPs.59 & 94 of 2011**_ **:3:** affected area. Similarly, though an extent of 10 cents were taken for the construction of the tower, the court below has reduced the extent to 8 cents discarding the commission report. The market value fixed by the court below is also too low. Similarly, the percentage of diminution determined by the court below is also inadequate, in view of the manner and extent of lines which had been drawn over the petitioners' property. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the deduction of cropping expenditure of rubber trees is not supported by any materials. The learned counsel further drew my attention to the commission report and submits that the same is unbelievable and the data are reported without any basis. The extent of affected area is not reliable. The court below fixed Rs.4,000/- as market value of the property without the basis of any documentary evidence. The court below has erred in fixing the rate of diminution of land value at 20% taking into consideration of the fact that the property of the respondents herein is an agricultural land. At any rate, the additional quantum of compensation determined by the court below is erroneous and unsustainable. 5. Though the petitioners contended that 250 high yielding rubber trees and 50 coconut trees were cut and _**CRPs.59 & 94 of 2011**_ **:4:** removed from their property, no evidence has been produced to prove the same. But the respondents submitted that 63 rubber trees and 6 coconut trees were cut and removed from the petitioners' property and the same is proved by Ext.B2, B2(a), B3 and B3(a) valuation statements produced and marked by the respondents. In the absence of any evidence contrary to the documents produced by the respondents, I am unable to accept the contention that 250 rubber trees and 50 coconut trees were cut and removed from the petitioners' property. 6. Ext.A2 valuation statement filed by the respondents proves that 63 yielding trees aged 9 years and 6 coconut trees aged 40 years were cut and removed from the property of the petitioners. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that the court below determined the annual return of the fruit bearing trees at the rate of 8%, following the decision reported in **State of Hariyana v. Gurcharan Singh (AIR 1996 SC 106)** , **Airport Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy (AIR 2002 SC** **1423)** and the recent decision reported in **K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC))** . Though the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the fixation of annuity at 8% is erroneous, in view of the decision in **Airport Authority of** _**CRPs.59 & 94 of 2011**_ **:5:** ## **India v. Satyagopal Roy (AIR 2002 SC 1423)** , I am unable to countenance the said argument in view of para 14 of the said judgment, which reads as follows: “ Hence, in our view, there was no reason for the High Court not to follow the decision rendered by this Court in _Gurucharan Singh's_ case and determine the compensation payable to the respondents on the basis of the yield from the trees by applying 8 years' multiplier. In this view of the matter, in our view, the High Court committed error apparent in awarding compensation adopting the multiplier of 18.” 7. The court below fixed the annual yield on the basis of the valuation statements prepared by the competent officers of the respondent Corporation, prepared before cutting and removal of trees; but no evidence has been adduced by the petitioners contrary to the yield quantified in the valuation statements. Earlier, the respondents have deducted 60% as cropping expenditure and the court below has rightly reduced the same to 40%, which is justifiable. On an analysis of the basic materials on which the court below determined additional compensation for cutting and removal of trees, I find no reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation fixed by the court below, for the loss of trees. _**CRPs.59 & 94 of 2011**_ **:6:** 8. The next point to be considered is whether the court below can be justified in granting Rs.28,800/- for the diminution of land value. According to the mahazar and the evidence given by D.W.1, the transmission lines pass through the eastern boundary of the petitioners' property. The total extent of the property is 1.7 Hectares. Having regarding to the larger extent of the property, I am unable to accept the contention that the total extent of the property is effected by the drawal of the line through the eastern boundary. Certainly, the area beneath the transmission lines can be taken as affected area and seasonal crops alone can be cultivated beneath the transmission lines 12 in number. In the above view, the court below can be justified in fixing 30 cents as affected area. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the affected area shown by the Commissioner. On a total appreciation of the commission report I am of the opinion that no reliance can be placed on the commission report which is seen apparently prepared to support the exorbitant claim of the petitioner. In the absence of any independent evidence contrary to the mahazar, and the evidence of D.W.1, the determination of affected area to the extent of 30 cents is justifiable. Similarly, though the Commissioner had reported that 10 cents had been lost on _**CRPs.59 & 94 of 2011**_ **:7:** account of the construction of the tower, D.W.1 in evidence stated that 6 cents have been taken for the construction of the tower. Therefore, 8 cents has been assessed as the affected area and the petitioner has been given 100% compensation for the said affected area. I do not find any reason to interfere with the extent of affected area. 9. Coming to the market value, no evidence had been adduced by the petitioners to show the market value prevailing in that locality at the relevant time of drawing of electric lines. In the absence of evidence, the court below can be justified in fixing the market value of the land at Rs.4,000/- per cent, though the petitioner had claimed Rs.10,000/- per cent. Admittedly, the electric transmission lines pass through the eastern boundary of the plaint schedule property. The court below has fixed the diminution of land value at 20% of the market value of the land. 10. Having regard to the decision in **K.S.E.B. v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC))** , I am of the opinion that the situs of the land _,_ the distance between the high voltage electricity lines laid there over, the extent of the lines thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small track of land _**CRPs.59 & 94 of 2011**_ **:8:** or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors would be determinative. Admittedly, the electric transmission lines 12 in number having capacity of 400 KV had been drawn through the petitioners' property. Having regard to the nature and extent of the lines, I am of the opinion that the diminution of land value fixed by the court below is not reasonable as well as justifiable and the diminution of land value can be fixed at 45% of the market value. Therefore, I find that the petitioners are entitled to get compensation for diminution of land value at 45% for an extent of 36 cents. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to get a compensation of Rs.46,800/-. There is no reason to interfere with the compensation fixed for the tower area. Thus the total additional compensation entitled to the petitioners is Rs.1,40,758/- (Rs.65,158/- + Rs.28,800/- + Rs.46,800/-). Therefore, in the above view, C.R.P. No.94/11 is allowed in part and C.R.P. No.59/11 is dismissed. Sd/- **(** _**K.HARILAL, JUDGE)**_ ## **okb.**