The Kerala State Electricity Board v. C. Bhargavan

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Harilal
Judgment Date: 2014-06-16
Court Decision / Holding: This revision petition is devoid of merits and dismissed; the impugned award granting 1,11,000 for diminution of land value and related compensation is upheld as just and proper.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

The Kerala State Electricity Board

Respondents

C. Bhargavan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. K.M. Sathyanatha Menon, SC, KSEB

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri S. Jiji

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court civil revision (CRP No. 541 of 2011-A) filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board challenging an award in OP 33/2008 (Electricity) by the District Court, Kasaragod, related to compensation for the 110 KV DC line drawn for a sub-station at Mulleria. The respondent landowner claimed losses from tree cutting and decreased land value due to the line passing over his property, asserting substantial market value and damages beyond the trees. The first award granted 4,287 for trees, with no compensation for diminution of land value; the District Judge subsequently awarded 1,11,000 with interest at 6% from the date of cutting until payment, for diminution of land value, but did not award compensation for fruit trees or other factors. The petitioner contends the additional compensation is excessive and disproportionate, arguing that market value was fixed without proper basis, and that the affected area (53 cents) and the diminishing land value (40%) are miscalculated; it relies on Ext. C1 and Ext. C2 and the Commissioner’s report. The court, applying the Apex Court’s reasoning in K.S.E.B. v. Livisha, held that injurious affectation and market value can be determined even in the absence of strict documentary evidence, fixing market value at 5,000 per cent and diminution at 40%. The revision petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, upholding the impugned award as just and proper.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sec.16 of the Indian Telegraphs ActSec.51 of the Indian Electricity ActSec.42 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Injurious affection (doctrine)
Market value principle for land affected by utility lines

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The Board argues that the impugned award is excessive and disproportionate. The market value was fixed without any proper basis and the assessed area of 53 cents appears inconsistently supported by Ext. C1/C2. No evidence was provided by the respondent to contradict the Commissioner’s report. The court below relied on Ext. C1/C2 but failed to adequately prove current market value; it also erred in granting compensation for land diminution without showing corresponding tree-value losses. The Board contends the 40% diminution and the overall award should be re-evaluated in light of lack of documentary evidence and the real impact on utility of the land.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent-landowner claimed substantial market value for the property, asserting that the installation of the 110 KV line severely affected utility and value, particularly because the line runs close to his residence. He sought higher compensation beyond the awarded 1,11,000 for land diminution and argued the affected area should yield greater compensation given potential commercial value near the road. He relied on the Commissioner’s findings and asserted the lack of adequate birdseye evidence to counter the market value claims.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
K.S.E.B. v. Livisha	2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)	Positive	The Apex Court decision is cited and followed to support determining injurious affection and land value assessment when documentary evidence is lacking; it provides the framework for evaluating market value and the effect of high-tension lines.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** **MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/26TH JYAISHTA, 1936** **CRP.No. 541 of 2011 ( ) ------------------------** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP 33/2008 (ELECTRICITY) OF THE DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD.** **REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT:** **----------------------------------** **THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB** **RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:** **-------------------------** **C.BHARGAVAN, S/O.MANI AMMA, RESIDING IN ADKA, KARADKA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, P.O.KARADKA, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER YAMUNA, W/O.BHARGAVAN.C, RESIDINGA IN ADKA, KARADKA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, P.O.KARADKA, PIN 671 542.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **K. HARILAL, J.** ## **-----------------------------------------------------C.R.P. No.541 of 2011-A -----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of June, 2014** ## **ORDER** The petitioner is the respondent in O.P.No.33/08 (Electricity) on the files of the District Court, Kasaragod. The above petition was filed by the respondent under Sec.16 of the Indian Telegraphs Act and Sec.51 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Sec.42 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, seeking compensation for the loss suffered by the respondent by cutting and removal of trees and diminution of the land value caused by the drawing of 110 KVDC line over the respondent's property, for the purpose of setting up a sub station at Mulleria. At the first instance, the petitioner has passed an award granting **C.R.P. No.541 of 2011** -: 2 :- an amount of 4,287/- as compensation for the cutting of trees; but no amount had been awarded for the diminution of the land value. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred the above O.P. The respondent was examined as P.W.1 and Ext.A1 was marked. Ext.B1 was marked for the petitioner. The report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner were marked as Exts.C1 and C2 respectively. After considering the evidence on record, the learned District Judge passed an award granting `1,11,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of cutting of trees till the date of actual payment. 2. This revision petition is filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board on the ground that the additional compensation given to the respondent is excessive and disproportionate with the actual loss suffered by the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments in support of various grounds raised in the Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition. According to him, the court below went wrong by granting `1,06,000/- for **C.R.P. No.541 of 2011** -: 3 :- diminution of the land value. The market value was fixed without any basis. Similarly, the percentage of diminution fixed by the court below is excessive and disproportionate with the actual area injuriously affected. 3. The short question that arises for consideration is whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the determination of additional compensation granted by the court below? Going by the impugned award, it could be seen that 110 KVDC lines were drawn through the property of the respondent dividing the same into two and the line passes at a distance of 2 Mtrs. from the residential house. The total extent of the property is 3.53 Acres and coconut trees aged more than 30 years, cashew trees and other valuable trees were cut and removed for the drawing of the lines. The respondent claimed that the property is situated in a potential area and would fetch more than `20,000/- per cent as market value. Though the respondent claimed `17,20,830/-, the court below had granted `1,11,000/- only. To a certain extent the court below had relied on Ext.C1 ## **C.R.P. No.541 of 2011** -: 4 :- report and Ext.C2 plan. But to the contrary, no evidence had been adduced by the respondent. The court below has not given any additional compensation towards the tree value; but `1,11,000/- has been given for diminution of the land value. 4. As per Ext.C1 report and Ext.C2 plan, it is seen that the affected area would come to 53 cents and no serious objection was raised by the respondent against that finding of the Commissioner. More over, no evidence had been adduced by the respondent to the contrary. If the affected area was lesser than 53 cents, certainly the respondent could have produced the sketch prepared by the concerned officials of the respondent showing the nature and lie of the lines. Therefore, I find that the court below can be justified in taking 53 cents as affected area. 5. Coming to the market value, it is true that no documentary evidence had been produced by the respondent to show the current market value. But injurious affection by drawing of electric lines is a reality which is **C.R.P. No.541 of 2011** -: 5 :- approved by the Apex Court in K.S.E. B. v. Livisha [2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC)]. In the above decision, the Apex Court held as follows: “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 track 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. So far as the compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees are concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” In view of the proposition laid down by the Apex Court, in my view, even in the absence of documentary evidence to ## **C.R.P. No.541 of 2011** -: 6 :- show the current market value of the property, it can be determined, on the basis of the evidence available on record. 6. The Commissioner had reported that the present value would come at `15,000/- per cent. But it was the market value prevailing in the year 2009 in that locality. Admittedly, the respondent's property lies adjacent to a public road and the Commissioner has reported that the property has some commercial importance. Considering all these aspects, the court below fixed the market value at `5,000/- per cent as 1/3[rd] of the market value fixed by the Commissioner. I find that in view of the available evidence on record, the market value fixed by the court below is just and proper. 7. Coming to the percentage of diminution of the land value, the court below found that the value of the property is reduced by 40%. Certainly, the drawing of High Tension lines would reduce the utility of the property for residential purposes and seasonal crops alone can be cultivated in the clearing area. In the above view, I find that the diminution **C.R.P. No.541 of 2011** -: 7 :- of the land value fixed at 40% is also just and proper. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned award under challenge. The additional compensation granted by the court below is just and proper. This revision petition is devoid of merits and dismissed accordingly. Sd/- ## **(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)** ## **Nan/** //true copy// P.S. to Judge