Suresh P A v Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd; Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd v Suresh P A

## **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. 372 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.587 OF 2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **SURESH P A AGED 55 YEARS S/O.AYYAPPANKUTTY, PEECHAMPILLI HOUSE, ELABAKKAPPILLI, AYMURIKKARA, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, 683 544 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 TAHSILDAR (L.A.) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA, CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, NOW NEAR CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 030** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 030** - **4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR.GP.K.P.HARISH,A.ARUN KUMAR SC,KSEB.,PRAVEEN K.JOY** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **19.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.165/2022, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.372 of 2021 and 165 of 2022 -2- ## **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. 165 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.587 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, PIN - 683565** **BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 SURESH P A AGED 47 YEARS S/O AYYAPPANKUTTY, AGED 47 YEARS, PEECHAMPILLY HOUSE,ELAMBAKKAPILLI, AYMURIKKARA, 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 - 682 030, PIN - 682030** - **4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, PIN - 695001 BY ADV P.T.JOSE** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **19.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.372/2021, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.372 of 2021 and 165 of 2022 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 21[st] day of May, 2024 These revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P.(Electricity) No.587 of 2013. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.372 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 4.13 Ares in Sy.No.220/2 of Koovappady Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. CRP Nos.372 of 2021 and 165 of 2022 -4- 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.25,500/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.A7 CRP Nos.372 of 2021 and 165 of 2022 -5- document as well as Exts.C13 and C13(a) commission report and sketch. The court below adopted the land value in Ext.A7 document. Relying on Ext.C13(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor was held to be 7.165 cents and that of the outer corridor, 3.040 cents. The court below also took note of the fact that a house is situated in the extent covered by the central corridor and has granted Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on that account. For the central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for outer corridor, 20% of the land value. Since it was found that a small portion of land is left as remaining property and the entire property is affected by the drawing of electric lines, the court below has also granted Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.8,90,371/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.372 of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP CRP Nos.372 of 2021 and 165 of 2022 -6- No.165 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 the initial compensation, even later. 5. It is submitted that the court below CRP Nos.372 of 2021 and 165 of 2022 -7- grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land value for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridor. It is further submitted that the court below is not justified in granting only Rs.2,00,000/- towards the injurious affection on house situated in the extent covered by central corridor and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation even after finding the entire property is affected due to the drawing of electric lines. According to the learned Counsel, 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 the compensation granted towards diminution in land value 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 CRP Nos.372 of 2021 and 165 of 2022 -8- 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 corridor are exorbitant. According to the learned Counsel, the court below grossly erred in granting Rs.2,00,00/- towards the 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 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. The court below also took note of the fact that the trees had been cut and removed in the year 2011, whereas the Commissioner CRP Nos.372 of 2021 and 165 of 2022 -9- inspected the property much later. Therefore, the court below rightly refused to accept the assessment made by the Commissioner, which was based on an overview of the remaining trees in the petition schedule and neighbouring properties. On the other hand, the Corporation had assessed the yield on the basis of local inspection, enquiry and data furnished by the Government departments. Hence, it was rightly held by the court below that the evidence let in by the claimant is not sufficient to discard the contemporaneous valuation statement prepared by the Corporation. 8. For fixing the compensation payable towards the diminution in land value, 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.372 of 2021 and 165 of 2022 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** _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, in the case at hand, the compensation was fixed 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. After considering the similarities of the properties involved, the court below adopted the land value in Ext.A7 document, which according to me, is reasonable. For the central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for the outer CRP Nos.372 of 2021 and 165 of 2022 -11- corridor, 20% of the land value, which also I find to be just and proper. Similarly, the 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/after finding that a small portion of land is left as remaining property as well as 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.**_ _**Jayaram v Kerala State Electricity Board [2015**_ CRP Nos.372 of 2021 and 165 of 2022 **==> picture [25 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** _**(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. 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. 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/