Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs Salavudeen on 10 October, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
2025:KER:75949
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. 388 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2017 IN OPELE NO.97 OF
2012 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - IV, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
VILAGOM PURAYIDAM, DOCTOR'S LINE,
PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADV SRI.E.M.MURUGAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SALAVUDEEN
S/O. MUHAMMAD KUNJU, S. S. MANZIL,
URUKUNNU P. O., EDAMON VILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAM TALUK- 671 001.
2 SHAHIDA SALAVUDEEN
W/O. SALAVUDEEN, S. S. MANZIL,
URUKUNNU P. O., EDAMON VILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAM TALUK- 671 001.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:75949
CRP NO.388 OF 2019
2
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, challenging the order dated 07.08.2017 in O.P(Ele) No.97 of 2012 on the files of the Court of the Additional District Judge -IV, 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 k.V. Electric line/erecting tower from Thenkasi to Edamon.
2025:KER:75949 CRP NO.388 OF 2019 3
2. The learned District Judge found that the respondents are entitled to enhanced compensation for the cutting of trees and for the diminution in land value. The original petition was allowed in part and the respondents were allowed to realise an additional amount of Rs.6,25,265/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of cutting of trees with proportionate cost from the petitioner and its assets.
3. Heard Sri.E.M.Murugan, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The revision petition is filed along with an application to condone the delay in filing the petition. Composite 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 2025:KER:75949 CRP NO.388 OF 2019 4 and 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.Murugan 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.Murugan argued by reiterating the grounds pleaded in the memorandum of revision petition.
5. As regards the contention of the revision petitioner that the land value of the property fixed is higher than its fair value fixed by the Government, the learned District Judge has rightly found that the fair value notification of the year 2014 produced has no nexus to the market value. In Xavier.T.T v Power Grid Corporation of 2025:KER:75949 CRP NO.388 OF 2019 5 India Ltd [2024 KHC 1278], this court held as follows:
"9. The contention of the Corporation that the Government having fixed the fair value, the court below could not have fixed a higher value is liable to be rejected since, while assessing the damage sustained and fixing the compensation, the court is not bound by the guidelines / orders issued by the Government."
Therefore, in the light of the said decision, the aforesaid contention of the petitioner is not sustainable.
6. On going through paragraph 11 of the impugned order, I find that the land value has been fixed as Rs.20,000/- per cent on the basis of the materials on record and a reasonable guess work. I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned District Judge with regard to fixation of land value.
7. The learned District Judge has fixed the 2025:KER:75949 CRP NO.388 OF 2019 6 percentage of diminution in land value as 10%. 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 learned District Judge has fixed the percentage of diminution in value of land after taking into consideration the relevant factors laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha and others [2007 (3) KLT 1]. The Court held as follows:
"10. The situs of the land, the distance 2025:KER:75949 CRP NO.388 OF 2019 7 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 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.
2025:KER:75949 CRP NO.388 OF 2019 8
8. 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.
9. The multiplier factor adopted by the learned 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 determining the compensation for trees cut is without proper reasoning, also fails.
10. 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] 2025:KER:75949 CRP NO.388 OF 2019 9 and in V.V. Jayaram v Kerala State Electricity Board [2015 (3) KHC 453]. The finding of the learned District Judge that the respondents would be entitled to interest at 8% 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 2017 and the original petition is of the year 2012. 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 a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any deposit/payment already made as per the 2025:KER:75949 CRP NO.388 OF 2019 10 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 application, if any, will stand closed.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SPR