Vincent K.V. v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **THURSDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1946** ## **CRP NO. 332 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2020 IN OPELE NO.1266 OF 2012 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **VINCENT K.V., AGED 51 YEARS S/O. VARIATH, KOLATTUKUDY HOUSE, MURINGEDATHPARA, CHULLY, AYYAMPUZHA P.O., MANJAPRA, ALUVA TLAUK. BY ADVS. P.T.JOSE S.ASHITHA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, KAKKANAD, NOW IN PAO/400, 220KV SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKARA, KOCHI-682303, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER.** - **2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, NOW IN KAKKANAD P.O., PIN682030.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI682030.** - **4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SC FOR KSEB RIJI RAJENDRAN AND A.ARUNKUMAR;SR.GP.K.P.HARISH ; SC FOR POWERGRID MILLU DANDAPANI** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.22/2022, THE COURT ON 25.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.332/2021 & 22/2022 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **THURSDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1946** **CRP NO. 22 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.1266 OF 2012 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 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 VINCENT K.V. S/O.VARIATH, KOLATTUKUDY HOUSE, MURINGEDATHPARA, CHULLY, AYYAMPUZHA P.O., MANJAPRA, ALUVA TALUK.** - **2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 017.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 030.** - **4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY ADVS. P.T.JOSE R.HARISHANKAR** ## **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD** **ON 31.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.332/2021, THE COURT ON 25.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.332/2021 & 22/2022 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 25[th] day of April, 2024 These revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P.(Electricity) No.1266 of 2012. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.332 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 12.70 Ares comprised in Sy.No.181/1 in Block No.20 of Ayyampuzha Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the claimant, to facilitate CRP Nos.332/2021 & 22/2022 -4- 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.1,55,135/- 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.A11 document as well as Exts.C1 and C1(a) commission report and sketch. The court below took note of CRP Nos.332/2021 & 22/2022 -5- the fact that while the property in Ext.A11 document is having public road access on two sides, the petition schedule property has no direct public road access. Based on the said factor, the court below fixed the land value of the claimant's property at Rs.1,80,063/- per cent, by deducting 20% of the land value shown in Ext.A11 document. Relying on Ext.C1(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor was held to be 3.632 cents and that of the outer corridor, 14.700 cents. For the central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for the outer corridor, 20% of the land value. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.7,90,980/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.332 of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.22 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. CRP Nos.332/2021 & 22/2022 -6- 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. It is submitted that the court below is not justified in fixing the land value at Rs.1,80,063/- per cent, by deducting 20% of the value of the property involved in Ext.A11 document. 5. It is further submitted that the court below grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land value as compensation for central corridor and only 20% for the outer corridor. 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 contended that, compensation towards diminution in land value granted is exorbitant. The court below also erred in relying on Ext.A11 for fixing CRP Nos.332/2021 & 22/2022 -7- 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 corridor are exorbitant. 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 interested testimony of PWs 1 and 2. Moreover, even the Advocate Commissioner found it difficult to assess the loss since the trees had already been cut. The court below also noticed that, without providing any independent input, the Advocate Commissioner has exactly copied the details from the Detailed Valuation Statement into Ext.C1 report. Therefore, the court below rightly held that the evidence let in by the claimant was not sufficient to discard the contemporaneous valuation statement prepared, by the Corporation. CRP Nos.332/2021 & 22/2022 -8- 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 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 in fixing the land value as well as the percentage of CRP Nos.332/2021 & 22/2022 -9- diminution. Based on the above factors and a comparison of the petition schedule property with the property involved in Ext.A11, the court below has fixed the land value at Rs.1,80,063/- per cent, viz; 20% less than the land value shown in Ext.A11, which according to me, is reasonable. For the central corridor, 40% of the land value is granted as compensation and for the outer corridor, 20% is granted, which also I find to be just and proper. 9. The contention of the Corporation that the Government having declared a compensation package, the court below ought to have fixed the compensation in accordance with the package 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**_ CRP Nos.332/2021 & 22/2022 -10- ## _**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 Corporation had paid Rs.1,55,135/- 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. CRP Nos.332/2021 & 22/2022 -11- For the aforementioned reasons, the civil revision petition filed by the claimant is allowed in part. The direction in the impugned 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 his filing appropriate application. The civil revision petition filed by the Corporation is dismissed. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/