## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
# **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 30TH PHALGUNA,**
## **1945**
**CRP NO. 105 OF 2022**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.99 OF 2014**
**OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM**
## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:**
**POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030, REPRESENTED BY SENIOR ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PRESENTLY AT CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, 400/220, KV SUB STATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O, PALLIKKARA, ERNAKULAM 683 565, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
|**1**|**ROSSY JOY,**|
|---|---|
||**AGED 78 YEARS**|
||**W/O.M.M. JOY, MANGALY HOUSE, MANJAPRA (P.O),**|
||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA-683 581**|
|**2**|**THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),**|
||**POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., KAKKANAD,**|
||**ERNAKULAM-682 030**|
|**3**|**KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,**|
||**REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VAIDYUTHI**|
||**BHAVAN, PATTOM (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004**|
|**4**|**STATE OF KERALA,**|
||**REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO**|
||**GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695**|
||**001**|
||**BY ADV V.P.POULOSE**|
CRP No.105 of 2022
-2-
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
## **SR.GP.PREETHA K.K; SC FOR KSEB B.PREMOD**
**THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.12.2023, THE COURT ON 20.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
CRP No.105 of 2022
-3-
## **ORDER**
Dated this the 20[th] day of March, 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 the first respondent towards diminution in land value, consequent upon the drawing of 400 KV electric lines across the first respondent's property by the Corporation. The essential facts are as under;
The first respondent is in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 1 Acre comprised in Re-Sy.No.593/8-1 in Block No.20 of Manjapra Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the first respondent, to facilitate drawing of the lines and smooth transmission of power, large number of
CRP No.105 of 2022
-4-
trees were cut from her 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 first respondent, only Rs.1,67,947/- 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.A8 document as well as Exts.C1 and C1(a) commission report and plan. The court below took note of the
CRP No.105 of 2022
-5-
fact that while the property in Ext.A8 document is having public roads on two sides, the access to the petition schedule property is through a pocket road passing through the western side. Based on the said factors, the court below fixed the land value of the first respondent's property by deducting 10% of the value of the property in Ext.A8 document. The court below also took note of the fact that no electric line has been drawn across the petition schedule property and only the outer corridor passes through the extreme southern side admeasuring 8.796 cents, and compensation of 20% of the land value was granted for that area. Accordingly, the first respondent was found entitled to compensation of Rs.3,56,361/-.
3. Heard learned Counsel appearing on
either side.
4. Learned Counsel for the Corporation
contended that, compensation towards diminution
CRP No.105 of 2022
-6-
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.A8 for fixing the land value of the first respondent's property. As no electric lines were drawn across the petition schedule property and no prohibition on the landowner from conducting agricultural activities and putting up small structures, 20% of land value granted for the outer corridor is exorbitant. Per contra, learned Counsel for the first respondent argued that the 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. Even, according to the Commissioner, only stumps of
CRP No.105 of 2022
-7-
trees cut could be seen at the time of
inspection. The court below also noticed that the Advocate Commissioner had calculated the age,
nature and yield of trees cut on the basis of information given by the first respondent and neighbours. Therefore, the court below rightly held that the evidence let in by the first respondent was 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_
CRP No.105 of 2022
-8-
_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 deducted 10% of the land value of the property in Ext.A8 document, which according to me, is reasonable. The discretion was properly exercised in granting
20% of the land value as compensation for the outer corridor.
7. The contention of the Corporation that
the Government having declared compensation
CRP No.105 of 2022
-9-
package of the properties in that area, the court below could not have fixed a higher compensation 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].**_ Having held so, I find a patent mistake in the order, which is liable to be corrected in exercise of this Court's revisional jurisdiction. It is seen that initially the Corporation had paid Rs.1,67,947/- towards the value of trees cut alone and had refused to pay any amount towards diminution in land value. As per the impugned order, the court below rejected the claim for enhancement of compensation towards value of
CRP No.105 of 2022
-10-
trees cut and awarded compensation towards diminution in land value. Even though the court below did not grant compensation for the value of trees cut, the impugned order contains a direction to deduct the compensation paid towards value of trees cut from the enhanced compensation awarded. This may be interpreted as a direction to deduct the compensation towards value of trees paid by the Corporation from the compensation towards diminution in land value granted by the court below. The impugned order, to that extent, need to be corrected. Accordingly, the direction in the impugned order to deduct the compensation paid towards value of trees cut from the enhanced compensation awarded is deleted. The
compensation awarded by the court below shall be paid within three months, without any deduction.
If any amount is deposited pursuant to the order of this Court or otherwise, the same shall forthwith be released to the first respondent on
CRP No.105 of 2022
-11-
her filing appropriate application.
The civil revision petition is dismissed
accordingly.
Sd/-
**V.G.ARUN JUDGE**
Scl/
