Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs Mahilamani on 10 October, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
CRP NO. 870 OF 2019 : 1 :
2025:KER:75563
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 18TH ASWINA, 1947
CRP NO. 870 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.07.2018 IN OPELE NO.128 OF
2012 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V,
KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,
VILAGOM PURAYIDAM, DOCTORS LINE PATHANAMTHITTA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
BY ADV SHRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
RESPONDENT/:
1 MAHILAMANI, AGED 60 YEARS
W/O GANGADHARAN, NADUVILAYATHU VEEDU,
URUKUNNU P.O.THENMALA VILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM-691 307.
2 SIJU S, S/O MAHILAMANI, NADUVILAYATHU VEEDU,
URUKUNNU P.O.THENMALA VILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM-691 307.
3 SINU S, S/O MAHILAMANI, NADUVILAYATHU VEEDU,
URUKUNNU P.O.THENMALA VILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM-691 307.
4 SMITHA S, D/O MAHILAMANI, NADUVILAYATHU VEEDU,
URUKUNNU P.O.THENMALA VILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM-691 307.
CRP NO. 870 OF 2019 : 2 :
2025:KER:75563
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FIALLY
HEARD ON 10.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRP NO. 870 OF 2019 : 3 :
2025:KER:75563
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, challenging the order dated 26.07.2018 in O.P(Ele) No. 128/2012 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 respondents 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 their property for the purpose of drawing 400 kV Electric line/ erecting CRP NO. 870 OF 2019 : 4 : 2025:KER:75563 tower from Thenkasi to Edamon.
2. The learned Additional District Judge found that the respondents are entitled to enhanced compensation for the cutting of trees. Since the respondents were not having ownership over the property, no amount was awarded towards diminution in land value. However, to redress the grievance of the respondents, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded. The original petition was allowed in part and the respondents were allowed to realise an additional amount of Rs.1,61,106/- 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: CRP NO. 870 OF 2019 : 5 :
2025:KER:75563
(i) The assessment of the value of yeilding trees is not in confirmity with the settled principles.
(iv) The multiplier factor applied for determining the compensation for trees cut is wrong.
(v) 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.Praveen K.Joy, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The revision petition is filed along with an application to condone the delay in filing the petition. Consolidated notice was ordered in the CRP and in the application to condone delay. Since the process fee for service of notice has not been paid, notice has not been served on the respondents and CRP NO. 870 OF 2019 : 6 : 2025:KER:75563 service is incomplete. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed for default in terms of Rule 67 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971. However, Sri. Praveen submitted that fresh notice may be ordered on the respondents. To consider the said request, the learned counsel was asked to argue the revision petition on merits. Sri. Praveen argued by reiterating the grounds pleaded in the memorandum of revision petition.
6. 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.
7. The multiplier factor adopted by the learned Additional District Judge for determining the CRP NO. 870 OF 2019 : 7 : 2025:KER:75563 compensation for trees cut is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha and others [2007 (3) KLT 1]. Therefore, the contention of the revision petitioner that the multiplier applied for determining the compensation for trees cut is without proper reasoning, also fails.
8. The compensation awarded is just and reasonable and based on materials on record and there is no error of law or error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the learned District Judge.
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 CRP NO. 870 OF 2019 : 8 : 2025:KER:75563 Board [2015 (3) KHC 453]. The finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the respondents 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. The impugned order is of the year 2018. I find no reason to issue fresh notice to the respondents at this distance of time. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed on merits. The entire enhanced compensation shall be paid to the claimants 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 CRP NO. 870 OF 2019 : 9 : 2025:KER:75563 application for condonation of delay and other interlocutory application, if any, will stand closed.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SB