Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Shaiju (CRP Nos. 382 of 2021 and 19 of 2022)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945** ## **CRP NO. 382 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.442 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**|**SHAIJU**| |---|---| ||**AGED 37 YEARS**| ||**S/O.PAULO, KOLATTUKUDY HOUSE, MARYGIRL KARA,**| ||**MANJAPRA, ANGAMALY**| |**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:** **SC FOR KSEB B.PREMOD;GP S.L.SYLAJA** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **20.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP NO.19/22, THE COURT ON 13.03.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.382/21 & 19/22 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945** **CRP NO. 19 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.442 OF** **2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **SHAIJU AGED 45 YEARS S/O.POULO, KOLATTUKUDY HOUSE, MARYGIRI KARA, MANJAPRA, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 581. BY ADV P.T.JOSE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682 030, NOW IN PAO/400, 220KV SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKKARA, COCHI - 683 565, REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.** - **2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 017 NOW IN THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KAKKANAD P.O. - 682 030.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 030.** - **4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SC FOR KSEB B.PREMOD; GP B.S.SYAMANTHAK** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** - **18.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP NO.382/2021, THE COURT ON 13.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.382/21 & 19/22 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 13[th] day of March, 2024 These revision petitions are filed challenging the common order passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P. (Electricity) No.442 of 2013. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.19 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 22 Ares comprised in Sy.No.92/4 in Block No.20 of Manjapra Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding CRP Nos.382/21 & 19/22 -4- 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.1,35,815/- 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.382/21 & 19/22 -5- concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A7 document as well as Exts.C3 and C3(a) commission report and plan. The court below found that a Panchayat road is reaching to the claimant's property after crossing a bridge, which is the boundary of Manjapra and Ayyampuzha Villages. The court below also took note of the fact that the claimant's property is situated in close proximity to important institutions including church, school, Homeo Clinic and the ManjapraChullikkal bus route is situated at a distance of 250 metres. Based on the said findings and considering the fact that the petition schedule property is not sharing any of its boundaries with a public road or PWD road, the court below fixed the land value of the claimant's property by deducting 10% of the value shown in Ext.A7 property. Relying on Ext.C3(a) plan, it is found that no electric line has drawn across the claimant's property and the extent of outer CRP Nos.382/21 & 19/22 -6- corridor was held to be 5.806 cents for which 20% of the land value was granted as compensation. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.2,35,225/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.19 of 2022, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.382 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 were not relied on by the court below for the reason that the property was inspected much after CRP Nos.382/21 & 19/22 -7- 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 a Panchayat road is reaching to the claimant's property after crossing a bridge, which is the boundary of Manjapra and Ayyampuzha Villages. The claimant's property is also situated in close proximity to important institutions including church, school, Homeo Clinic and the Manjapra-Chullikkal bus route is situated at a distance of 250 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 20% for the outer corridor. Considering the extent of damage sustained and the diminution in land value CRP Nos.382/21 & 19/22 -8- 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, 20% of the land value granted 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 CRP Nos.382/21 & 19/22 -9- 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 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.382/21 & 19/22 -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 have all been considered for fixing the land value as well as the percentage of diminution. The court below has deducted only 10% of the land value in Ext.A7, on the ground that the claimant's property is not sharing any of its boundaries with a public road or PWD road, which according to me, is a reasonable deduction. Even though no electric line has drawn across the CRP Nos.382/21 & 19/22 -11- claimant's property, for the outer corridor, 20% of the land value 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 as the Corporation are dismissed. If any amount is deposited pursuant to an 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/