Sukumari Pushkaran v Power Grid Corporation of India Construction Area Office and Ors. (CRP Nos. 375/2021 and 77/2022)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1946** ## **CRP NO. 375 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.443 OF 2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **SUKUMARI PUSHKARAN AGED 56 YEARS W/O.PUSHKARAN, KIZHKEPURATH HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM P.O., PALUSSERRY, KARUKKUTTY, ANGAMALY - 683 576. BY ADV P.T.JOSE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, KAKKANAD,NOW IN PAO/400, 220KV SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKARA, KOCHI - 682 303, REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.** - **2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.) POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,KOZHIKODE, NOW IN KAKKANAD P.O. -682 030, NEAR CIVIL STATION.** - **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 - 695 004. BY ADV 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.77/2022, THE COURT ON 23.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.375/2021 & 77/2022 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1946** **CRP NO. 77 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2020 IN OPELE NO.443 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 - 683 565, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER.** **BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**SUKUMARI PUSHKARAN**| |---|---| ||**AGED 57 YEARS**| ||**W/O.PUSHKARAN, KIZHKKEPURATH HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM**| ||**P.O., PALLISSERY, KARUKUTTY, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM -**| ||**683 544.**| |**2**|**THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)**| ||**POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,**| ||**KOZHIKODE - 673 017.**| |**3**|**STATE OF KERALA**| ||**REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION,**| ||**KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 030.**| |**4**|**KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD**| ||**REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB**| ||**LTD., VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM (PO),**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.**| ||**BY ADV P.T.JOSE**| ## **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **18.01.2024, ALONG WITH 375/2021, THE COURT ON 23.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.375/2021 & 77/2022 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 25[th] day of March, 2024 These revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P.(Electricity) No.443 of 2013. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.375 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 her 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 12.92 Ares comprised in Re-Sy.No.240/3-2 in Block No.1 of Karukutty Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding CRP Nos.375/2021 & 77/2022 -4- trees. According to the claimant, to facilitate drawing of the lines and smooth transmission of power, large number of 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 claimant, only an amount of Rs.1,01,269/- 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.375/2021 & 77/2022 -5- concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A9 document as well as Exts.C1 and C1(a) commission report and plan. The Advocate Commissioner reported that the claimant's property is situated in an important locality and the KarukuttyPallissery road, which is a bus route, lies at a distance of 30 metres from her property. Moreover, Pallissery Higher Secondary School, Government Hospital, Karukutty Service Cooperative Bank and Church are situated within close proximity to the petition schedule property. Based on these factors, the court below adopted the land value shown in Ext.A9 document. Relying on Ext.C1(a) plan, the extent of central corridor was held to be 10 cents and that of the outer corridors, 12.62 cents (5.630 + 6.990). The court below also took note of the fact that the remaining portion of land admeasuring 8.945 cents is also affected due to the drawing of electric lines. For the central corridor, 40% of CRP Nos.375/2021 & 77/2022 -6- the land value was granted as compensation and for the outer corridors, 20% of the land value. The compensation for remaining property was granted at the rate of 5% of the land value fixed by the court. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.15,69,074/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.375 of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.77 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 CRP Nos.375/2021 & 77/2022 -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. 5. It is submitted that the court below grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land value fixed for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridors. It is further submitted that the court below is not justified in granting only 5% of the land value as compensation towards the remaining property, which was also rendered useless due to the drawing of electric lines. Considering the extent of damage sustained and the diminution in land value, the court below ought to have granted compensation as claimed. 6. Learned Counsel for the Corporation CRP Nos.375/2021 & 77/2022 -8- 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.A9 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 the land value granted for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridors are exorbitant. The court below grossly erred in granting 5% of the land value as compensation towards the remaining 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. CRP Nos.375/2021 & 77/2022 -9- Indisputably, the trees were cut in the year 2011 and the Commissioner had inspected the property much later. As observed by the court below, the Commissioner was not examined to prove Ext.C1 report. As against this, the Corporation had assessed the yield on the basis of established norms of various Government departments. As such, the evidence let in by the claimant cannot be given precedence over the contemporaneous valuation statement prepared by the Corporation. Being so, the court below rightly rejected the enhanced compensation claimed towards the value of trees cut. 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_ CRP Nos.375/2021 & 77/2022 -10- _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, 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.A9 document, which according to me, is reasonable. For the central corridor, 40% of the land value is granted as compensation and for CRP Nos.375/2021 & 77/2022 -11- the outer corridors, 20% is granted, which also I find to be just and proper. The discretion was properly exercised for granting 5% land value as compensation for the remaining property. 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.**_ ## _**Jayaram v Kerala State Electricity Board [2015 (3) KHC 453].**_ 10. Having held as above, 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 CRP Nos.375/2021 & 77/2022 -12- Corporation had paid Rs.1,01,269/- 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 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 already paid from the enhanced compensation awarded. This may be interpreted as a direction to deduct the compensation initially paid towards value of trees from the compensation towards diminution in land value granted by the court below. The impugned order, to that extent, need to be corrected. For the aforementioned reasons, the civil revision petition filed by the claimant is allowed in part. The direction in the impugned CRP Nos.375/2021 & 77/2022 -13- order, to deduct the compensation already paid from the enhanced compensation is deleted. The enhanced 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 claimant on her filing appropriate application. The civil revision petition filed by the Corporation is dismissed. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/