E.K.Sivan vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd

These revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P.(Electricity) No.516 of 2013. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.357 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 46 Ares comprised in Sy.No.40/3 in Koovappady Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non- yielding 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.21,788/-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.

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.C3 and C3(a) commission report and sketch. Relying on Ext.C3(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor was held to be 2.421 cents and that of the outer corridor, 6.968 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.4,01,397/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.357 of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.297 of 2022 contending that the enhancement ordered is far in excess of the actual damage sustained.

Heard Adv.P.T.Jose for the claimant and Adv.Millu Dandapani for the Corporation.

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 later.

It is submitted that the court below grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land value for the central corridor and only 20% 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.

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.

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 the claimant, no other witnesses were examined. It is also noticed by the court below that the trees were cut and removed in the year 2011 and the Commissioner inspected the property after a long period. Therefore, the court below rightly refused to accept the assessment made by the Commissioner, which was based on the standing trees in the claimant's property and the neighbouring property. On the other hand, the court below found the Corporation to have assessed the yield on the basis of local inspection, enquiry and data 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 at the instance of the Corporation.

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 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. The court below has adopted the land value in Ext.A7 document, which according to me, is reasonable. The discretion was properly exercised in granting 40% of the land value as compensation for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridor. It is pertinent to note that the court below had followed the decision of this Court in V.V. Jayaram v Kerala State Electricity Board [2015 (3)  KHC  453]  to  fix  the  rate  of  interest  at  9% per annum on the compensation towards diminution in land value. 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.

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 portion of the enhanced compensation is deposited by the Corporation, that shall forthwith be disbursed to the claimant on appropriate application being filed.