Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Silanandan

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946** **CRP NO. 272 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.01.2021 IN OPELE NO.556 OF 2012 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673017, NOW AT 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**|**SILANANDAN**| |---|---| ||**AGED 62 YEARS**| ||**S/O. KURUVILA, ELAVUMKUDI, AYMURI KARA,**| ||**KOOVAPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHU NADU TALUK,**| ||**ERNAKULAM DST., PIN - 683544**| |**2**|**THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)**| ||**POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.**| ||**CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017**| |**3**|**THE SPECIAL REVENUE OFFICER**| ||**POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.**| ||**CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017**| |**4**|**STATE OF KERALA**| ||**REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION**| ||**BUILDING, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN -**| ||**682030**| |**5**|**KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - KSEB**| ||**VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| ||**REP. BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER, PIN - 695001**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**M.V.JOHN**| ||**RENJU JOHN**| ||**THRESIA ANU P.J**| CRP No.272 of 2022 -2- **SUJA R. NAIR B.JAYAPARAKASH** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR.PP.K.P.HARISH;SC FOR KSEB B.PREMOD** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.05.2024, THE COURT ON 03.06.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP No.272 of 2022 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 03[rd] day of June, 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 ('the claimant' for short), consequent upon the drawing of 400 KV electric lines across his property by the Corporation. The essential facts are as under; The claimant is in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 66.20 Ares comprised in Re-Sy.No.385/1-2 of Koovappady Village. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the claimant, to facilitate drawing of the lines for the smooth transmission of power, large number of trees were cut from his property. The drawing of CRP No.272 of 2022 -4- 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 Rs.2,57,385/- 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 allowed the claim for enhancement of compensation towards the value of trees cut by awarding 50% of the compensation already granted by the Corporation. Thus, the claimant was found entitled to Rs.1,28,692/towards the value of trees cut. **==> picture [381 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** compensation towards diminution in land value is CRP No.272 of 2022 -5- concerned, the court below relied on Ext.P22 document as well as the commission report and sketch. Along with other factors, Ext.P17 commission report pertaining to the very same property and produced in another civil suit was also taken into consideration. The court below also took note of the fact that Ext.P22 document was executed one year after the trees were cut and removed from the petition schedule property. Based on the said factors and on consideration of the fact that the petition schedule property is having a tar road frontage, the court below fixed the land value at Rs.1,53,000/- per cent, by deducting 10% of the value shown in Ext.P22 document. Relying on the sketch prepared by the Commissioner, the extent of central corridor was held to be 34.964 cents and that of the outer corridors, 39.708 cents (27.181+12.527). For the central corridor, 40% of the land value was CRP No.272 of 2022 -6- granted as compensation and for outer corridors, 20% of the land value. Taking note of the fact that a small portion of land on the western side of the petition schedule property was also affected due to the drawing of electric lines, the court below granted Rs.2,00,000/- as additional compensation. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.36,83,552/-. **==> picture [381 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** Corporation and Adv.M.V.John for the claimant. 5. Learned Counsel for the Corporation contended that compensation towards the value of trees cut and the diminution in land value granted are exorbitant and there is no rationale in granting 9% interest on that amount. The court below also erred in relying on Ext.P22 for fixing the land value of the claimant's property. As drawing of electric lines does not prohibit the CRP No.272 of 2022 -7- landowner 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. According to the learned Counsel, the court below grossly erred in granting Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the remaining property, which is in no way affected. Per contra, learned Counsel for the claimant argued that the enhancement was granted after considering all relevant factors. 6. The court below had awarded 50% of the compensation already granted towards value of trees cut as additional compensation to the claimant. A careful scrutiny of the impugned order reveals that the claim for enhancement of compensation towards the value of trees cut was rightly considered on the basis of available evidence produced. 7. As far as the diminution in land value CRP No.272 of 2022 -8- 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 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 CRP No.272 of 2022 -9- of diminution. Based on the above factors and a comparison of the petition schedule property with the property involved in Ext.P22, the court below has deducted 10% of the land value shown in Ext.P22 document, which according to me, is reasonable. Similarly, the discretion vested with the court was properly exercised in granting 40% of the land value as compensation for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridors. On consideration of the fact that the remaining small portion of property on the western side is also affected by the drawing of electric lines, the court below granted Rs.2,00,000/- to the claimant, which also I find to be just and proper. 8. 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 the court is not CRP No.272 of 2022 -10- bound by the guidelines/orders issued by the Government while fixing the compensation. The contention that the court below committed an illegality by 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 is dismissed. **sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/