Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd v. Sabu Joseph

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946** ## **CRP NO. 385 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.353 OF 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-683 565, REP.BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER** **BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**SABU JOSEPH**| |---|---| ||**AGED 33 YEARS**| ||**S/O.JOSEPH, VADAKKUMCHERRY, THAVALAPPARA, ANAPPARA**| ||**P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM 683 581**| |**2**|**THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA)**| ||**POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,**| ||**KOZHIKODE 673 017**| |**3**|**STATE OF KERALA**| ||**REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,**| ||**ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 030**| |**4**|**KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD**| ||**REP.BY IT'S CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB**| ||**LTD, VYDYUDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM (P.O.),**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**P.T.JOSE**| ||**R.HARISHANKAR**| ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **GP B.S.SYAMANTHAK; SC FOR KSEB A. ARUNKUMAR** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP NO.4/2022, THE COURT ON 09.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.385/21 & 4/22 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946** **CRP NO. 4 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.353 OF 2013 OF VI** **ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **SABU JOSEPH AGED 42 YEARS** **S/O JOSEPH,VADAKKUMCHERRY, THAVALAPPARA, ANAPPARA P O, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683574. 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, 220KV SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P O, PALLIKKARA, COCHI682030, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER.** - **2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKKODE-673017, NOW IN THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KAKKANAD P O-682030.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI682030.** - **4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **18.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP NO.385/2021, THE COURT ON 09.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.385/21 & 4/22 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 09[th] day of April, 2024 These revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P.(Electricity) No.353 of 2013. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.4 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 98.22 Ares comprised in Sy.Nos.132/4, 140/2 and 132/2-2 in Block No.18 of Ayyampuzha Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and CRP Nos.385/21 & 4/22 -4- 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.3,08,769/- 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 CRP Nos.385/21 & 4/22 -5- concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A7 document as well as Exts.C1 and C1(a) commission report and sketch. The court below found that the petition schedule property lies on the south western side of Moolapara – Olivelly Road and various Government institutions are situated adjacent to the property. The court below also took note of the fact that the claimant's property is situated in close proximity to important institutions including church, schools and other commercial institutions, which are situated at a distance of about 500-750 metres. Based on the said findings and considering the fact that the property in Ext.A7 document is having public roads on two sides and was purchased for a business purpose, the court below fixed the land value of the claimant's property by deducting 10% of the value shown in Ext.A7 document. Relying on Ext.C1(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor was held to be 42.25 CRP Nos.385/21 & 4/22 -6- cents and that of the outer corridors, 70.32 cents (12.305 + 58.015). For the central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for the outer corridors, 20% of the land value. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.62,72,407/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.4 of 2022, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.385 of 2021 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 CRP Nos.385/21 & 4/22 -7- 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 claimant's property is situated in close proximity to important institutions including church, schools, various Government institutions and other commercial institutions, which are situated at a distance of about 500-750 metres. Without considering these crucial factors, 10% deduction was made from the value of the property involved in Ext.A7 document. 5. It is further submitted that the court below grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land value as compensation for the central corridor and only 20% for the outer corridors. CRP Nos.385/21 & 4/22 -8- 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 amount. The court below also erred in relying on Ext.A7 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, 40% of land value granted for central corridor and 20% for the outer corridors are 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, CRP Nos.385/21 & 4/22 -9- 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 the claimant, no other independent witnesses were 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 after a long period and calculated the amount on the basis of mahazar, the scientific basis of which is not proved by the claimant. Being so, such calculation 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_ CRP Nos.385/21 & 4/22 -10- _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 are all seen considered for fixing the land value as well as the percentage of diminution. The court below has deducted only 10% of the land value shown in Ext.A7 document, which according to me, is reasonable. For the central corridor, 40% of the land value is granted as compensation and for the outer corridors, 20% is granted, which I find to be CRP Nos.385/21 & 4/22 -11- just and proper. 9. The contention of the Corporation that the Government having declared special compensation package, 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 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].**_ 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.385/21 & 4/22 -12- as the Corporation are dismissed. If any amount is deposited pursuant to the order of this Court or otherwise, the same shall forthwith be released to the claimant on his filing appropriate application. The entire enhanced compensation shall be paid to the claimant within three months of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/