Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India vs C. V. Xavier on 20 March, 2024
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 30TH PHALGUNA,
1945
CRP NO. 44 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2020 IN OPELE
NO.1271 OF 2012 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,
ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SENIOR ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PRESENTLY AT
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, 400/220, KV SUB
STATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKKARA,
ERNAKULAM-683 565.
2 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
CHEVARAMBALAM,, KOZHIKODE-673 017, REPRESENTED
BY SENIOR ASSISTANT MANAGER. (PETITIONERS 1 AND
2 REP. BY THIER AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AND SENIOR
GENERAL MANAGER SMT.G.AMBIKA DEVI, CONSTRUCTION
AREA OFFICE, 400/220, K.V.SUB STATIONL
IUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKKARA, ERNAKULAM-683 565.
BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 C. V. XAVIER
S/O.VARIETH, CHULLY HOUSE, MANJAPRA P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 581.
2 THE SPECIAL TABSILDAR (LA)
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,
CHERVARAMBALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 017.
3 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BORD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR KSEB LTD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O,
CRP No.44 of 2022
-2-
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
4 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,-695 001.
BY ADVS.
V.P.POULOSE
R.HARISHANKAR
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SYLAJA S.L.; SC FOR KSEB B.PREMOD
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.12.2023, THE COURT ON 20.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP No.44 of 2022
-3-
ORDER
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2024 The revision petitioner, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd ('the Corporation' for short), is aggrieved by the enhanced compensation ordered to be paid to the first respondent towards diminution in land value, consequent upon the drawing of 400 KV electric lines across the first respondent's property by the Corporation. The essential facts are as under;
The first respondent is in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 28 cents in Ayyampuzha Village in Aluva Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. According to the first respondent, 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 CRP No.44 of 2022 -4- and adjacent to the lines useless, resulting in diminution of the value of the property. In spite of the huge loss suffered by the first respondent, only Rs.1,76,075/- 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.A8 document as well as Exts.C1 and C1(a) commission report and plan. The court below took note of the fact that while the property in Ext.A8 document is having public roads on two sides, there is no direct road access to the petition schedule CRP No.44 of 2022 -5- property from any public road. Based on the said factors, the court below fixed the land value of the first respondent's property by deducting 20% of the value of the property in Ext.A8 document. Relying on Ext.C1(a) plan, the extent of central corridor was held to be 1.037 cents and that of the outer corridor, 8.425 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 first respondent was found entitled to compensation of Rs.3,78,096/-.
3. Heard Adv.Poulose Vallooran for the first respondent and Adv.Millu Dandapani for the Corporation.
4. 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.A8 for fixing the land value of the first respondent's property. As the drawing of electric CRP No.44 of 2022 -6- lines does not prohibit the land owner 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. Per contra, learned Counsel for the first respondent argued that the enhancement was granted after considering all relevant factors.
5. 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 reports, was made available. Even, according to the Commissioner, only stumps of trees cut could be seen at the time of inspection. The court below also noticed that the Advocate Commissioner had calculated the yield, income and value on the basis of information given by the people residing near to the petition schedule property. Therefore, the CRP No.44 of 2022 -7- court below rightly held that the evidence let in by the first respondent was not sufficient to discard the contemporaneous valuation statement prepared by the Corporation.
6. 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. CRP No.44 of 2022 -8- The nature of the land, the cultivation therein 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. The court below has deducted 20% of the land value of the property in Ext.A8 document, which according to me, is reasonable. The discretion was properly exercised in granting 40% of the land value as compensation for central corridor and 20% for the outer corridor.
7. The contention of the Corporation that the Government having fixed the fair value of properties in that area, the court below could not have fixed a higher value 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 CRP No.44 of 2022 -9- the decision of this Court in V.V. Jayaram v Kerala State Electricity Board [2015 (3) KHC 453]. Having held so, 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.1,76,075/- 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 paid towards value of trees cut from the enhanced compensation awarded. This may be interpreted as a direction to deduct the compensation towards value of trees paid by the Corporation from the compensation CRP No.44 of 2022 -10- towards diminution in land value granted by the court below. The impugned order, to that extent, need to be corrected. Accordingly, the direction in the impugned order to deduct the compensation paid towards value of trees cut from the enhanced compensation awarded is deleted. The 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 first respondent on his filing appropriate application.
The civil revision petition is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/