Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1946 CRP NO. 5 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPELE NO.905 OF 2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: P.P.DEVASSY, AGED 75 YEARS S/O.OUSEPH, PALATTY HOUSE, MANJAPRA P.O., MANJAPRA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK-683 581. BY ADV P.T.JOSE RESPONDENT/S:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030, NOW IN PAO/400, 220KV SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKKARA, COCHI-682 303, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER. 2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKKODE-673 017, NOW IN THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KAKKANAD P.O., PIN-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-695 001. BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR
OTHER PRESENT: SC FOR KSEB RIJI RAJENDRAN SR.GP. V.TEKCHAND SC FOR POWERGRID PRAVEEN K.JOY AND MILLU DANDAPANI THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.29/2022, THE COURT ON 25.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1946 CRP NO. 29 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.03.2021 IN OPELE NO.905 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, 400/200, KV SUB STATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKKARA, ERNAKULAM - 683 565, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT/S:
1 P.P.DEVASSY AGED 67 YEARS S/O.OUSEPH, PALATTY HOUSE, MANJAPRA P.O., MANJAPRA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, KERALA - 683 581. 2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM,KOZHIKODE - 673 017. 3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 030. 4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD., VAIDYUTHI BHAWAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. BY ADVS. P.T.JOSE R.HARISHANKAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
31.01.2024, ALONG WITH CRP.5/2022, THE COURT ON 25.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -3-
ORDER
Dated this the 25th 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.905 of 2013. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.5 of 2022 (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 16.46 Ares
comprised in Sy.No.113/6 of Ayyampuzha Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees.
According to the claimant, to facilitate drawing -4- 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.1,62,195/- 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 document as well as Exts.C6 and C6(a) commission -5- report and sketch. The Advocate Commissioner reported that the claimant's property is situated at a distance of about 150 metres from Manjapra- Ayyampuzha road, which is a bus route. It is also reported that St.Joseph Church is situated at a distance of 1 Km and SBI at half a kilometre from the petition schedule property. Similarly, Mariyabhavan UP School is situated at a distance of 750 metres and Manjappra Town is at about 600 metres. Moreover, Kanchapilay Dental Hospital and Co-operative Society are situated at a distance of 750 metres from the property. The court below also took note of the fact that the petition schedule property is a garden land. Based on these factors, the court below fixed the land value of the claimant's property at Rs.2,02,571/- per cent, by deducting 10% of the land value of the property involved in Ext.A7 document. Relying on Ext.C6(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor was held to be 2.692 cents (0.617 + 2.075) and that of the outer corridor, 16.185 -6-
cents. For the central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for outer corridor, 20% of the land value. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.8,73,850/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.5 of 2022, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.29 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 -7- 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 the claimant's property is a garden land situated at a distance of about 150 metres from Manjapra-Ayyampuzha road, which is a bus route. St.Joseph Church is situated at a distance of 1 Km and SBI at half a kilometre from the petition schedule property. Similarly, Mariyabhavan UP School is situated at a distance of 750 metres and Manjappra Town is at about 600 metres. Moreover, Kanchapilay Dental Hospital and Co-operative Society are situated at a distance of 750 metres from the property. Without considering these crucial factors, 10% deduction was made from the land value of the property involved in Ext.A7 document.
5. It is further submitted that the court below grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land value for the central corridor and only 20% -8- for outer corridor. 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.A7 for fixing 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 land value granted for 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 since no supporting material,
-9-
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 one of the connected cases, no other
independent witnesses were examined. The court below also took note of the fact that the Commissioner's assessment was based on the
Mahazar, whereas the Corporation has assessed the compensation on the basis of details furnished by
the Government departments. 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 -10-
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 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.A7, the court below has fixed the land value at Rs.2,02,571/- per cent, viz; 10% less than the value shown in Ext.A7 document, which according -11- to me, is reasonable. Similarly, discretion was properly exercised by the court below in granting 40% of the land value as compensation for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridor.
9. The contention of the Corporation that
the Government having declared a special 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 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. -12- For the aforementioned reasons, the civil
revision petitions filed by the claimant as well as the Corporation are dismissed. The enhanced compensation fixed by the court below shall be paid within three months of receipt of a copy of this order. 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.
Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/