Kerala High Court
Santhamma vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd on 19 November, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
2025:KER:89848
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. 24 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.09.2017 IN OPELE NO.118 OF
2012 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - IV, KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
SANTHAMMA
AGED 66 YEARS, W/O. SASIDHARAN,
JAYABHAVANAM, URUKKUNU P.O.,
THENMALA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARUN BABU
SMT.S.NISHI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
VILAGOM PURAYIDAM, DOCTORS LANE,
PATHANAMTHITTA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER - 689 645.
BY ADV SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 19.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:89848
CRP NO.24 OF 2018
2
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 13.09.2017 in O.P.(Ele) No.118 of 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 her property for the purpose of drawing a 400 kV electric line/erecting tower from Thenkasi to Edamon. Two main issues raised in this revision petition are:-
2025:KER:89848 CRP NO.24 OF 2018 3 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 that while assessing the value of the yielding trees, the exemplars of yield produced as Exts.A4 to A7 and Ext.A10 deposition of the Agricultural Officer in OP(Ele) No.197 of 2006 were ignored by the learned District Judge.
4. As regards the fixation of land value, it is contended by the petitioner that Ext.A14 exemplar deed brought out in evidence which could have been the touchstone for determination of compensation 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 2025:KER:89848 CRP NO.24 OF 2018 4 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 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 2025:KER:89848 CRP NO.24 OF 2018 5 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 SPR