V.V. Jose and Kochuthresia Jose 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1946** ## **CRP NO. 403 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.263 OF 2015 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** - **1 V.V.JOSE AGED 69 YEARS VARTEETH, VAZHAKALA HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM P.O., PALISSERY, KARUKKUTTY VILLAGE, ANGAMALY - 683 576.** - **2 KOCHUTHRESIA JOSE AGED 64 YEARS W/O.V.V.JOSE, VAHZKALA HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM P.O., PALISSERY, KARUKKUTTY VILLAGE, ANGAMALY - 683 576. BY ADV P.T.JOSE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, KAKKANAD, NOW IN PAO/400, 220KV SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKKARA, KOCHI - 682 303 REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER.** - **2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.) POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, NOW IN KAKKANAD P.O. - 682 030.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 030.** - **4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SC FOR KSEB B.PREMOD; SR.GP.V.TEKCHAND** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.95/2022, THE COURT ON 22.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1946** ## **CRP NO. 95 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 16.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.263 OF 2015 OF DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, REP. BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN -682 030, PIN - 682030** **BY ADV E.M.MURUGAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 V V JOSE AGED 75 YEARS VAZHAKKALA HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM.P.O, PALLISSERY, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ANGAMALY, PIN - 683576** - **2 KOCHUTHRESIA AGED 68 YEARS VAZHAKKALA HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM.P.O, PALLISSERY, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ANGAMALY, PIN - 683576** - **3 SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, KANAYANOOR TALUK, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030** - **4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030** - **5 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 BY ADV P.T.JOSE** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **10.02.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.403/2021, THE COURT ON 22.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022 -3- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 22[nd] 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.263 of 2015. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioners in CRP No.403 of 2021 (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 a total extent of 32.10 Ares made up of 16 Ares in Re-Sy.No.286/4, 13.10 Ares in Re-Sy.No.286/3 and 3 Ares in ReSy.No.271/3 of Karukutty Village in Aluva Taluk. CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022 -4- The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the claimants, to facilitate drawing of the lines 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 an amount of Rs.2,57,306/- (Rs.2,47,209/- + Rs.10,097/-) was paid as compensation towards the value of trees cut and a meagre sum of Rs.12,317/- was paid for the tower footing area. 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 CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022 -5- compensation towards diminution in land value is concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A14 document as well as Exts.C1 and C1(a) commission report and plan. The Advocate Commissioner reported that a 3.1 metres wide pathway leads to the petition schedule property from the canal road. It was also reported that the Pallissery Higher Secondary School and Government Hospital are situated at a distance of 150 metres from the property. Similarly, St. George Church is at a distance of 400 metres and Naipunya Public School is about 1.5 Km away. 3. The court below found that, despite the proximity, the petition schedule property and the property involved in Ext.A14 document are situated in different villages, ie; Karukutty and Ayyampuzha Villages. The court below also took note of the fact that, while the property in Ext.A14 document is having public road access on two sides, the petition schedule property is not CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022 -6- having direct access to public roads on any side. Based on these factors, the court below fixed the land value of the claimants' property at Rs.1,80,063/- per cent, by deducting 20% of the land value of the property involved in Ext.A14 document. Relying on Ext.C1(a) plan, the extent of central corridor was held to be 27.952 cents and that of the outer corridors, 31.01 cents (20.31+10.700). Accordingly, an area admeasuring 10.950 cents lies on the north-western corner and another extent of 1.530 cents lies on the northeastern corner in triangular shape were held to be the remaining properties, marked as 'D' and 'E' respectively in the Commissioner's plan. For the 'D' marked portion of land, 5% of the land value was granted as compensation and for the 'E' marked area, 10% of the land value. Similarly, for the central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for the outer corridors, 20% of the land value. As only CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022 -7- Rs.12,317/- was paid towards the tower footing area admeasuring 7.413 cents, the court below granted compensation for the entire area at the rate of Rs.1,80,063/- per cent and fixed the final payable amount after deducting the amount already paid. Accordingly, the claimants were found entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.45,78,620/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimants have filed CRP No.403 of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.95 of 2022 contending that the enhancement ordered is far in excess of the actual damage sustained. 4. Heard Adv.P.T.Jose for the claimants and Adv.E.M.Murugan for the Corporation. 5. 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 CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022 **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 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 was 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. It is submitted that a 3.1 metres wide pathway leads to the petition schedule property from the canal road. It is also submitted that the Pallissery Higher Secondary School and Government Hospital are situated at a distance of 150 metres from the property. Similarly, St. George Church is at a distance of 400 metres and Naipunya Public School is about 1.5 Km away. Without considering these crucial factors, 20% deduction was made from the land value of the property involved in Ext.A14 document. CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022 **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 6. 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. Likewise, the court below was not justified in granting only 10% of the land value as compensation for 1.530 cents and 5% of the land value for 10.95 cents, even after finding the said portions to have been adversely affected by 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. 7. Learned Counsel for the Corporation contended that the compensation granted 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.A14 for fixing the land value of CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** the claimants' property. As the drawing of electric lines does not prohibit the landowners from conducting agricultural activities and putting up small structures, 40% of the land value granted for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridors are exorbitant. According to the learned Counsel, the court below grossly erred in granting 10% of the land value as compensation for 1.530 cents and 5% of the land value for 10.95 cents, which are in no way affected. 8. 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. The court below further noted that the petition schedule property was inspected by the Commissioner even after the trees were cut and removed. Therefore, CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022 **==> picture [25 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** the court below rightly refused to accept the assessment made by the Commissioner, which was based on an overview of the trees remaining in the petition schedule and nearby properties. Hence, it was rightly held by the court below that the evidence let in by the claimants were not sufficient to discard the contemporaneous valuation statement prepared by the Corporation. 9. 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 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_ CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022 -12- _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. Based on the above factors and a comparison of the petition schedule property with the property involved in Ext.A14, the court below fixed the land value at Rs.1,80,063/- per cent, viz; 20% less than the value shown in Ext.A14 document, which according to me, is reasonable. For the central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for the outer corridors, 20% of the land value, which also I find to be just and proper. CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Similarly, the discretion vested with it was properly exercised by the court below in granting compensation at the rate of Rs.1,80,063/- per cent for the extent covered by the tower, since that portion cannot be utilised for any other purpose. The court below was justified in granting 10% of the land value as compensation for 1.530 cents and 5% of the land value for 10.95 cents, on finding that the said remaining extent of land are also adversely affected. 10. The contention of the Corporation 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 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. CRP Nos.403 of 2021 and 95 of 2022 **==> picture [25 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** For the aforementioned reasons, the civil revision petitions filed by the claimants 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 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. **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/