Subramaniyan v Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **THURSDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1946** ## **CRP NO. 352 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.546 OF 2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **SUBRAMANIYAN AGED 51 YEARS S/O.AYYAPPANKUTTY, PEECHAMPILY HOUSE, ELAMBAKKAPILLI, AYMURI, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV P.T.JOSE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, KAKKANAD, NOW IN PAO/400, 220KV SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKARA, KOCHI 682 303, REP.BY DEPUTY MANAGER** - **2 THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (L.A.) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, NOW IN KAKKANAD P.O.682 030** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682 031** - **4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP.BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SC FOR KSEB RIJI RAJENDRAN SR.GP.K.P.HARISH AND V.TEKCHAND SC FOR POWERGRID MILLU DANDAPANI** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.167/2022, THE COURT ON 25.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.352/2021 & 167/2022 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **THURSDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1946** **CRP NO. 167 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.546 OF 2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA 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 SUBRAMANIYAN AGED 44 YEARS S/O AYYAPPANKUTTY, AGED 44 YEARS, PEECHAMPILLY HOUSE, ELAMBAKKAPILLI, AYMURI, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN - 683544** - **2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 017, PIN - 673017** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682030** - **4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 BY ADV P.T.JOSE** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.352/2021, THE COURT ON 25.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.352/2021 & 167/2022 -3- CRP Nos.352/2021 & 167/2022 -4- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 25[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.546 of 2013. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.352 of 2021 (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 10.70 Ares comprised in Sy.Nos.220/2-4, 220/2-5 of Koovappady Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk. The CRP Nos.352/2021 & 167/2022 -5- land was cultivated with various yielding and 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.62,159/- (10,918 + 51,241) 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 CRP Nos.352/2021 & 167/2022 -6- produced. As far as the claim for enhanced compensation towards diminution in land value is concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A7 document as well as Exts.C7 and C7(a) commission report and sketch. The court below has adopted the land value of the property involved in Ext.A7 document. Relying on Ext.C7(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor was held to be 12.52 cent and that of the outer corridors, 15.12 cents (4.05+11.07). For the central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for outer corridors, 20% of the land value. The court below also took note of the fact that a house is situated in the extent covered by the central corridor and granted Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on that account. Since the entire property was found to be affected by the drawing of electric lines, Rs.1,00,000/- was also awarded as compensation to the claimant. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of CRP Nos.352/2021 & 167/2022 -7- Rs.16,64,957/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.352 of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.167 of 2022 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 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 CRP Nos.352/2021 & 167/2022 -8- the initial compensation, even later. 5. It is 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. It is further submitted that the court below is not justified in granting only Rs.2,00,000/- towards the injurious affection on the house situated in the extent covered by the central corridor and only Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, even after finding the entire property is affected due to the drawing of electric lines. 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 CRP Nos.352/2021 & 167/2022 -9- 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. The court below grossly erred in granting additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/towards injurious affection on the house and Rs.1,00,000/- for the property, which is in no way affected. 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 found by the court below, apart from the interested testimony of a witness, who is the claimant in some of the connected cases, no other CRP Nos.352/2021 & 167/2022 -10- independent witnesses were examined. It is also noticed by the court below that the trees were cut and removed in the year 2011 and the Commissioner inspected the property after a long period. Therefore, the court below rightly refused to accept the assessment made by the Commissioner, which was based on an overview of the trees standing in the remaining petition schedule property and the neighbouring properties. On the other hand, the court below found the Corporation to have assessed the yield on the basis of local inspection, enquiry and data furnished by the Government departments. It was therefore held that the evidence let in by the claimant was not sufficient to discard the contemporaneous valuation statement prepared at the instance of 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**_ CRP Nos.352/2021 & 167/2022 -11- ## _**[(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 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 adopted the land value in Ext.A7 document, which according to me, is reasonable. For the central CRP Nos.352/2021 & 167/2022 -12- corridor, 40% of the land value is granted as compensation and for outer corridors, 20% is granted, which also I find to be just and proper. Similarly, discretion was properly exercised by the court below in granting Rs.2,00,000/- towards injurious affection on the house situated in the extent covered by the central corridor and Rs.1,00,000/-, on finding that the entire property is affected due to the drawing of electric lines. 9. 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, 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.**_ CRP Nos.352/2021 & 167/2022 -13- ## _**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 as the Corporation are dismissed. The enhanced compensation fixed by the court below shall be paid within three months of receipt of a copy of this order. 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. ## **Sd/-** ## **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/