Thomas K. V. vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1945** ## **CRP NO. 359 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 119/2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL** ## **DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** THOMAS K. V. AGED 58 YEARS KOLATTUKUDY HOUSE, MURINGEDATHPUAA, CHULLY, MANJAPRA P.O., ALUVA TALUK BY ADV P.T.JOSE ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, KAKKANAD, NOW IN PAO/400,220 KV SUB STATION, KUMANRAPURAM P.O., PALLIKARA, KOCHI-682 303, REP BY DEPUTY MANAGER 2 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031 3 THE SEPCIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, NOW IN KAKKANAD P.O.-682 030 4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI682 021 5 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI.A.ARUN KUMAR-SC,KSEB ,SRI.V.TEKCHAND-SR.GP THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.72/2022, THE COURT ON 21.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRP Nos.359 of 2021 and 72 of 2022 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 2ND PHALGUNA,** ## **1945** **CRP NO. 72 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 119/2013 OF VI** **ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S:** POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD 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 THOMAS.K.V. KOLATTUKUDY HOUSE, MUJRINGEDATHPARA, CHULLY, MANJAPRA (PO), ALUVA THALUK, ERNAKULAM - 683 581. 2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 017. BY ADV P.T.JOSE **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **15.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.359/2021, THE COURT ON 21.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.359 of 2021 and 72 of 2022 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 21[st] day of February, 2024 These revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P.(Electricity) No.119 of 2013. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.359 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 6.52 Ares comprised in Re-Sy.No.70/6/2 in Block No.20 of Manjapra Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding CRP Nos.359 of 2021 and 72 of 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 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.79,044/- 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.A4 CRP Nos.359 of 2021 and 72 of 2022 **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** document as well as Exts.C2 and C2(a) commission report and plan. The court below also noticed that similar to Ext.A4 property, there are roads on two sides of the claimant's property where claimant and his family resides. Based on these factors, the court below has adopted the land value shown in Ext.A4 property. Relying on Ext.C2(a) plan, the court below found that, only the outer corridor covering an extent of 1.309 cents passes through the north-western corner of the claimant's property, for which 20% of the land value was granted as compensation. It was also noted by the court below that the claimant and his family resides in the house situated very near to the outer corridor in the same property, which entitles him for a compensation at the rate of 10% of the land value for the remaining property admeasuring 14.801 cents. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.3,92,062/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum CRP Nos.359 of 2021 and 72 of 2022 **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.359 of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.72 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 CRP Nos.359 of 2021 and 72 of 2022 -7- later. 5. It is submitted that the court below grossly erred in granting only 20% of the land value fixed for outer corridor. It is further submitted that the claimant and his family resides in the house situated very near to the outer corridor in the same property. Without proper consideration of these facts, the court below grossly erred in granting only 10% of the land value for the remaining property. 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 Ext.A4 for fixing the land value of the CRP Nos.359 of 2021 and 72 of 2022 -8- claimant's property. As the drawing of electric lines does not prohibit the landowner from conducting agricultural activities and putting up small structures, 20% of the land value granted for the outer corridor is exorbitant. The court below grossly erred in granting 10% of the land value for the portion of the property, which was unaffected by drawing of the lines. 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 a connected case and that of a person who claimed to have purchased agricultural products from the landowners for the last ten years, no other witnesses were examined. The court below rightly refused to accept their CRP Nos.359 of 2021 and 72 of 2022 -9- testimony since it was at variance with the claim in the petition and the assessment made by the Commissioner. For the same reason, the findings in the Commission report were also not accepted. On the other hand, the court below found the Corporation to have assessed the yield on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Government. It was therefore held that the evidence let in by the claimant was 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_ CRP Nos.359 of 2021 and 72 of 2022 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** _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. After considering the similarities of the properties involved, the court below has adopted the land value in Ext.A4 document, which according to me, is reasonable. Similarly, valid reasons are stated for granting 20% of the land value as compensation for the outer corridor and 10% for the remaining property, wherein the claimant and his family resides. As such, there CRP Nos.359 of 2021 and 72 of 2022 **==> picture [25 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** 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 Corporation shall pay the enhanced compensation fixed by the court below within three months of receipt of a copy of this order. If any portion of the enhanced compensation is deposited by the Corporation, that shall forthwith be disbursed to the claimant on appropriate application being filed. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/