K.N.Aji vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd

V.G.Arun, J

These revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P.(Electricity) No.1259 of 2012. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.333 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 26.25 Ares comprised in Sy.No.243/1 of Karukutty Village in Aluva 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.89,378/- 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.C1 and C1(a) commission report and plan. As per Ext.C1 report, the Commissioner has reported that the claimant's property is situated on the western side of the Munnorpilly Road, which is about 150 metres to the north of Pallissery Junction. The court below also noticed that while Ext.A7 property is having public roads on two sides, as per Ext.C1(a) plan, the claimant's property is having no road access. Based on these factors, the court below fixed the land value of the claimant's property by deducting 20% of the value shown in Ext.A7 property. Relying on Ext.C1(a) plan, the extent of central corridor was held to be 15.443 cents and that of the outer corridors, 15.295 cents (3.385+11.910). For the central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for the outer corridors, 20% of the land value. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to compensation of Rs.16,63,097/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.333 of 2021, whereas the Corporation has filed CRP No.57 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 further contended that 20% deduction made from the value of property involved in Ext.A7 document is unreasonable.

It is submitted that the court below grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land value fixed for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridors. It is further submitted that the court below failed to consider the diminution in land value of the remaining property, which was rendered useless due to the drawing of electric lines and the direction to set off the amount already paid towards the value of yielding and non-yielding trees cut from the enhanced compensation awarded is illegal. It is hence contended that, 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 the land value granted for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridors 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. Even, according to the Commissioner, a clear and definite number could not be arrived at as the trees were already cut and removed. The court also noticed that the commission report is an exact copy of the details contained in Ext.A1 detailed valuation statement. As found by the court below, apart from the interested testimony of the claimant and that of a person who claimed to have purchased agricultural products from the claimant, no other witnesses were examined. 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.

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 for fixing the land value as well as the percentage of diminution. The court below has deducted only 20% of the land value in Ext.A7 document, which according to me, is a reasonable deduction. Similarly, in granting 40% of the land value as compensation for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridors also, the discretion was exercised in a proper manner. Being so, I find no reason to interfere with the question of enhancement. Having held so, I find the impugned order to the extent it directs deduction of the amount already paid from the enhanced compensation to be illegal. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the Corporation had paid only an amount of Rs.89,378/- towards the value of trees cut and had refused to pay any amount towards diminution in land value. The court below, on the other hand, rejected the claim for enhancement of compensation towards value of trees cut and awarded compensation towards diminution in land value. As no compensation was paid towards diminution in land value earlier, the court below was not justified in directing to deduct the compensation granted towards value of trees cut from the compensation awarded for diminution in land value. The impugned order, to that extent, warrants interference.

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 granted from the enhanced compensation is set aside. Consequently, the enhanced compensation awarded by the court below shall be paid within three months, without any deduction. If any portion of the enhanced compensation is already deposited, that shall forthwith be disbursed to the claimant on appropriate application being filed.

The civil revision petition filed by the Corporation is hence dismissed.