Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs Simon on 8 October, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
CRP NO. 415 OF 2019 : 1 :
2025:KER:74293
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 16TH ASWINA, 1947
CRP NO. 415 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.04.2018 IN OPELE NO.126 OF
2012 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - V, KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
G.AMBIKA DEVI, VILAGOM PURAYIDAM,
DOCTOR'S LANE PATHANAMTHITTA
BY ADV SRI.E.M.MURUGAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
SIMON
S/O.IYPE UNNOONNI, PIRALASSERIL,
URUKUNNU.P.O, THENMALA VILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAM TALUK-689679
BY ADV SRI.ARUN BABU
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 08.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRP NO. 415 OF 2019 : 2 :
2025:KER:74293
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, challenging the order dated 12.04.2018 in O.P(Ele) No. 126/2012 on the files of the Court of the Additional District Judge-V, Kollam. The revision petitioner is the respondent in the said original petition. The original petition has been filed by the respondent 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 Corporation for the trees cut and removed from his property for the purpose of drawing 400 K.V. Electric line/ erecting tower from Thenkasi to Edamon.
CRP NO. 415 OF 2019 : 3 :
2025:KER:74293
2. The learned Additional District Judge found that the respondent is entitled to additional compensation for the cutting of trees and for the diminution in land value. The original petition was allowed in part and the respondent was allowed to realise an additional amount of Rs.9,80,669/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of cutting of trees with proportionate cost from the petitioner and its assets.
3. The order of the learned Additional District Judge is impugned on the following grounds:
(i) The land value fixed is high and erroneous.
(ii) The learned Additional District Judge went wrong in fixing the percentage of diminution in land value at 40%.
(iii) The multiplier factor applied for CRP NO. 415 OF 2019 : 4 : 2025:KER:74293 determining the compensation for trees cut is wrong.
(iv) The learned Additional District Judge went wrong in fixing the rate of interest at 9% per annum and awarding the same from the date of cutting of trees.
4. Heard Sri.E.M.Murugan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Arun Babu, the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. As regards the contention of the revision petitioner that the land value of the property fixed is high, on going through paragraph No.15 of the impugned order, I find that the land value has been fixed as Rs.25,000/- per Are on the basis of exemplar deed brought out in evidence. I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Additional District Judge with regard to fixation of CRP NO. 415 OF 2019 : 5 : 2025:KER:74293 land value.
6. The learned Additional District Judge has fixed the percentage of diminution in land value as 40%. According to the revision petitioner, as per the guidelines for corridor compensation as fixed by the Government of India, only 15% of the land value can be fixed towards diminution value of land for line corridor. This Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd v. Thomas A.A [2024 KHC 1417] has held that, while fixing the compensation towards diminution in land value, the Court is not bound by the guidelines issued by the Government. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha and others [2007 (3) KLT 1] held as follows:
"10. The situs of the land, the CRP NO. 415 OF 2019 : 6 : 2025:KER:74293 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."
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 factors to be considered for fixing the land value. The line drawn is a 400 kV electric line. Restrictions are prescribed under the Indian CRP NO. 415 OF 2019 : 7 : 2025:KER:74293 Electricity Rules for use of the property over which the line is drawn. The normal user of the property is affected by the drawal of the line. I find no reason to interfere with the finding regarding the fixation of percentage of diminution in land value.
7. The loss sustained due to the cutting of yielding trees is assessed by taking the average annual yield, multiplying it by the value of one yield unit, and thereafter deducting the immature falling and expenses.
8. The multiplier factor adopted by the learned Additional District Judge for determining the compensation for trees cut is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Livisha (supra). Therefore, the contention of the revision petitioner that the multiplier applied for CRP NO. 415 OF 2019 : 8 : 2025:KER:74293 determining the compensation for trees cut is without proper reasoning, also fails.
9. As far as the contention regarding rate of interest awarded, the same cannot be sustained in the light of the decision of this Court in K.S.E.B v. Maranchi Matha and Others [2008 KHC 6128] and in V.V. Jayaram v Kerala State Electricity Board [2015 (3) KHC 453]. The finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the respondent would be entitled to interest at 9% per annum on the additional compensation from the date of cutting of trees requires no interference.
No other points have been argued. I do not find any merit in the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed on merits. The entire enhanced compensation shall be paid to the claimant CRP NO. 415 OF 2019 : 9 : 2025:KER:74293 within 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any deposit/payment already made as per the impugned order shall be adjusted/ deducted and the balance amount shall be disbursed as per this order. The application for condonation of delay and other interlocutory applications, if any, will stand closed.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SB