Kerala High Court
Moses Sebastian vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd on 19 November, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
CRP NO. 343 OF 2018 : 1 :
2025:KER:89792
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 28TH KARTHIKA,
1947
CRP NO. 343 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2017 IN OPELE NO.122 OF
2012 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV,
KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
MOSES SEBASTIAN, AGED 66 YEARS
S/O. SEBASTIAN, HEAVENLY HOUSE, URUKUNNU P.O.,
THENMALA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.
BY ADV SRI.ARUN BABU
RESPONDENT/:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
VILAGOM PURAYIDAM, DOCTORS LINE, PATHANAMTHITTA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER 689645.
R BY SC SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 19.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRP NO. 343 OF 2018 : 2 :
2025:KER:89792
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 23.09.2017 in O.P.(Ele) No.122/2012 passed by the Court of the Additional District Judge- IV, Kollam.
2. The revision petitioner is the petitioner in the original petition. The original petition has been filed by the petitioner herein under Sections 10 and 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., for the trees cut and removed from his property for the purpose of drawing a 400 kV electric line/ erecting tower from Edamon - Thenkasi. Two main issues raised in this revision petition are:-
CRP NO. 343 OF 2018 : 3 :
2025:KER:89792 A) The assessment of the value of the yielding trees is not in conformity with the settled principles.
B) There is error in the fixation of the land value.
3. It is contended by the petitioner that the assessment of the value of yielding trees is not in conformity with the evidence adduced by him. The petitioner states that he had produced exemplars of yield as Exts.A4, A6 and A8 as also Ext.A7 deposition of the Agricultural Officer in O.P.(ELec.) No.197/2006 to prove the yield. However, the learned District Judge did not consider Exts.A4, A6, A7 and A8.
4. As regards the fixation of land value, it is contended by the petitioner that Ext.A12 exemplar deed brought out in evidence which could have been the touchstone for determination of compensation CRP NO. 343 OF 2018 : 4 : 2025:KER:89792 payable for identically situated land was ignored by the learned District Judge and the market value of the property was fixed based on mere assumption. On going through the impugned order, I find force in the said argument. The fixation of land value is not based on materials on record.
5. The learned counsel on both sides submitted that in the light of the decision of this Court in Sasidharan Nair v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. [2023 : KER : 84945] which dealt with almost similar issues, the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge requires fresh consideration.
6. I find that the learned District Judge has erred in fixing the value of trees as well as the land value. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside CRP NO. 343 OF 2018 : 5 : 2025:KER:89792 and the original petition is remanded for fresh consideration and disposal on the basis of evidence already on record and in the light of the observations made above. The learned District Judge shall consider all relevant contentions raised by both parties and dispose of the original petition in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Additional District Court-IV Kollam, on 04.12.2025. The learned District Judge shall endeavour to dispose of the matter within six months from the said date.
This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SB