← Library
Madras High CourtAS/141/2012dismissed

The Chairman v. R.Nadarajan

2017-07-12Honourable Mr Justice R. Subramanian5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.07.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN A.S.No.141 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012

1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, having their office at Mount Road, Chennai - 2.

2. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, General Construction Circle, Basin Bridge, Chennai-12.

3. The Asst. Director, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, having their office at Tower Line Construction, Ambatur, Chennai-58.

...Appellants/Defendant -VsR.Nadarajan

...Respondent /Plaintiff

Prayer:

This appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to set aside the judgement and Decree dated 11.07.2011 made in O.S.No.9897 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.III), Chennai-1.

For Appellants : Mr.S.R.Shanmugadoss For Respondent : Mr.V.Srikanth JUDGEMENT The defendants in O.S.No.9897 of 2010 are the appellants. The suit was filed claiming compensation for the action of the appellant Board in drawing High Tension Power line through the plaintiff's land.

2. According to the plaintiff, he had purchased land ad-measuring 2032 sq.ft., as a house site for construction of a house and he has also obtained permission in the year 2002 from the Puzhal Panchayat. The plaintiff has also made certain averments of malafides against the defendant Board in re-routing the power line to suit the convenience of certain vested interests. Claiming that the appellant Board had drawn High Tension power line through his land making the land unfit for any use. The plaintiff claims a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) for the land and Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) for mental agony, pain and suffering.

3. The defendant Board resisted the claim contending that the land was only a barren land during execution of work. It was the further contention of the Board that there was no rerouting of the line as claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant Board would also contended that though it is liable to pay compensation, in such cases the compensation would be only to the extent of damages caused to the property and the plaintiff cannot seek the value of the property as compensation.

4. On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for damages at Rs.12,00,00/-(Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only) as claimed in the plaint?

2. If so, what is the rate of interest payable to the plaintiff?

3. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the suit?

4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for ?

5. On the side of the plaintiff, one witness was examined, and Ex.A-1 to A-9 were marked. On the side of the defendant, one witness was examined and no document was filed. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge rejected the claim of the plaintiff relating to malafides.

6. The learned trial Judge found that the plaintiff has suffered damages and that the entire land has been rendered unfit for any use. The contention of the defendants/Electricity Board is that the land was barren land and it was not a house site was rejected. Upon such findings, the learned trial Judge, after taking note of the value the land in the area reflected under Ex.A-9, sale deed dated 20.06.2011, held that the

plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only) towards damages. On the above findings, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only) along with interest at 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the said judgement and decree, defendants have come forward with the present appeal.

7. I have heard Mr.S.R.Shanmugadoss, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.V.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

8. The following issues arises for determination in the appeal:

1. Whether the claim of compensation granted by the trial Court is justified?

2. Whether the rate of interest at 9% p.a. granted by the trial Court is reasonable?

POINT NO.1:- 9.There is no dispute regarding the ownership of the land. The plaintiff would claim that this land is fit for construction of the house and he has in fact obtained a planning permission for construction of the house as early as in the year 2002, which has been marked as Ex.A-6. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that it is only Panchayat approval and the same is not valid evidence to show the nature of the land. The said approval has been granted in the year 2002. It is not shown the area in question, was a part of any town planning scheme sanctioned under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. In the absence of such evidence, the Panchayat approval cannot be ignored. Hence, the claim of the plaintiff that the land was purchased for construction of house site has to be accepted.

On the question of quantum of compensation, the learned Trial Judge has considered the document namely; Ex.A-9 sale deed which is of the year 2011 wherein, the larger extent of about 47 cents has been sold for a total consideration of Rs.81,89,600/- (Rupees Eighty One Lakhs Eighty nine Thousand Six Hundred Only). Therefore, on an over all assessment, the learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the extent of the land of the plaintiff, which is of a smaller extent of 2032 sq.ft., and being a residential plot, would not be less than Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only). Mr.S.R.Shanmugadoss, learned counsel for the appellants is unable to bring home any point in order to enable me to interfere with the reasoning of the trial Court.

Therefore, I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the judgement of the trial Court in fixing the compensation at Rs.12,00,000/-(Rupees Twenve Lakhs Only).

can still use the land for several other purposes, the entire value of the cannot be fixed as compensation.

10. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kerala Electricity Board .Vs. Livisha and Others [2007 6 SCC 792] wherein, while considering the quantum of compensation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 7 as follows: "............The amount of compensation is required to be determined keeping in view of the purpose and object of the statute. There cannot be any fixed formula therefor or the other.

Although undoubtedly one formula laid down may assist the Board and/or the Reference Court to apply the same, but there cannot be a hard-and-fast rule in this behalf. A fixed formula for determining the amount of compensation although may make the task of the Land Acquisition Officer or the Reference Court easier but in our opinion each case is required to be taken on its own merit. We may hasten to add that the purpose and object of the Act and the methodology laid down therein for the purpose thereof should be the guiding factor..."

11. In the case on hand, the land affected is a small plot measuring 2032 sq.ft only. In Ex.A-1, the linear measurements of the land shown as approximately about 30x68. Therefore, it is clear that the high tension power lines drawn across the plot of land with small measurements has affected the utility of the entire land. Particularly, in the case of a residential plot if it is rendered unfit for construction of a house, it cannot be used for any other purposes. Therefore, the Trial Court was right in taking into account, the sale deed of the year 2008 and fixing the value of the land at Rs.12,000,00/- and granting the same as compensation. It is not a case of drawing a high tension power line over agricultural lands where there was a diminution of utility of the land available to the owner of the land. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation fixed by the trial Court.

POINT NO.2:-

12. The trial Court after considering the fact that the plaintiff had purchased the land in question for the purpose of constructing a house and has granted interest at 9% from the date of judgement till the date of realisation. Normally, interest is granted from the date of plaint.

Considering the same, I do not propose to interfere with the rate of interest granted by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. Further, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CCC) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar KP To

1. Additional District Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.III), Chennai-1.

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

+1cc to M/S.V.Srikanth, Advocate Sr. 49216 +1cc to M/S.S.r.Shanmugadoss, Advocate Sr. 48509 A.S.No.141 of 2012 CNR(CO) VR(17/8/2017)