## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN**
**TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946**
## **CRP NO. 121 OF 2022**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.121 OF 2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S:**
- **1 SURESH AGED 59 YEARS S/O K A.KUTTAPPAN, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM, KARUKUTTY, ANGAMALY.**
- **2 KARTHIYAYINI AGED 79 YEARS W/O K A KUTTAPPAN, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM, KARUKUTTY, ANGAMALY.**
- **3 RAJI AGED 53 YEARS D/O K A KUTTAPPAN, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM, KARUKUTTY, ANGAMALY. BY ADV P.T.JOSE**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
- **1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030. NOW IN PAO/400,220KV SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P O, PALLIKARA, KOCHI-682303, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER.**
- **2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-673017, NOW IN THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KAKKANAD P O, PIN-682030.**
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
## **PRAVEEN K.JOY-R1,A.ARUN KUMAR SC**
## **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD**
**ON28.02.2024, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
CRP No.121 of 2022
-2-
## **ORDER**
Dated this the 21[st] day of May, 2024
This revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P.(Electricity) No.121 of 2013. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioners (hereinafter called 'the claimants'), being dissatisfied with the
compensation awarded towards the damage and loss sustained due to the drawing of 400 KV lines across their property by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd (hereinafter called 'the Corporation'). The essential facts are as under;
The claimants are in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 26 cents comprised in Sy.No.190/1 of Karukutty Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the claimants, to facilitate drawing of the lines
CRP No.121 of 2022
-3-
and smooth transmission of power, large number of trees were cut from their 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 claimants, only Rs.1,16,898/- 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 concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A5 document as well as Exts.C13 and C13(a)
CRP No.121 of 2022
-4-
commission report and sketch. The Advocate Commissioner reported that the petition schedule property is situated at a distance of 400 metres from the Government Higher Secondary School and Government Hospital. It is also reported that the petition schedule property lies at a distance of 750 metres from St.George Church and 1 Km from Naipunniya Public School. The court below also took note of the fact that the petition schedule property is situated at a distance of 100 metres from the Karukutty Palissery Munnoorpilly Road, which is a bus route and a canal road passes through the southern side of the property. Based on the said factors, the court below fixed the land value of the petition schedule property at Rs.1,80,063/- per cent, by deducting 20% of the value shown in Ext.A5 document. Relying on Ext.C13(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor was held to be 3.953 cents and that of the outer corridors, 5.165 cents (2.595+2.570). For the
CRP No.121 of 2022
**==> picture [16 x 8] intentionally omitted <==**
central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for outer corridors, 20% of the land value. Accordingly, the claimants were found entitled to compensation of Rs.4,70,720/-.
3. Heard Adv.P.T.Jose for the claimants
and Adv.Millu Dandapani for the Corporation.
4. Learned Counsel for the claimants
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
CRP No.121 of 2022
-6-
only on payment of the initial compensation, even later. It is submitted that the petition schedule property is situated at a distance of 400 metres from the Government Higher Secondary School and Government Hospital. Similarly, the property lies at a distance of 750 metres from St.George Church and 1 Km from Naipunniya Public School. Moreover, the petition schedule property is situated at a distance of 100 metres from the Karukutty Palissery Munnoorpilly Road, which is a bus route and a canal road passes through the southern side of the property. Without considering these crucial factors, 20% deduction was made from the value of the property involved in Ext.A5 document.
5. It is further submitted that the court
below grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land value for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridors. According to the learned Counsel, considering the extent of damage
CRP No.121 of 2022
-7-
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, the compensation granted towards diminution in land value is even otherwise exorbitant and the drawing of electric lines does not prohibit the landowners from conducting agricultural activities and putting up small structures.
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 in the absence of any supporting material, other than the findings in the Advocate Commissioner's report. As found by the court below, apart from the interested testimony of a witness, the claimant in some of the connected cases, no other independent witness was examined.
CRP No.121 of 2022
-8-
It is also not in dispute that the trees were cut in the year 2011, whereas the Commissioner inspected the property in the year 2015 and assessed the value of the trees based on an overview of the trees standing in the nearby properties. Such comparison, having no scientific
basis, 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 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_
CRP No.121 of 2022
-9-
_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 of diminution. Based on the above factors and a comparison of the petition schedule property with the property involved in Ext.A5, the court below deducted 20% of the land value of the property in Ext.A5 document, which according to me, is reasonable. Similarly, the discretion vested with it was properly exercised by the court below in granting 40% of the land value as compensation for central corridor and 20% for the outer corridors. As such, there is no illegality or
CRP No.121 of 2022
-10-
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.
If any amount is deposited pursuant to the order of this Court or otherwise, the same shall forthwith be released to the claimants on their filing appropriate application. The entire enhanced compensation shall be paid to the claimants within three months of receipt of a
copy of this order.
**sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE**
Scl/
