Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited vs Sulochana on 29 September, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
2025:KER:72770
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 7TH ASWINA, 1947
CRP NO. 184 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2017 IN OPELE NO.475 OF
2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - II, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
PALLIPURAM, THIRUVANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANGER,
G. AMBIKA DEVI.
BY ADV SRI.E.M.MURUGAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
SULOCHANA
W/O. MOHANAN, ARAYIL VEEDU,
URUKUNNU P.O., THENMALA VILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAM TALUK - 691 001.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:72770
CRP NO.184 OF 2019
2
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, challenging the order dated 19.12.2017 in O.P(Ele) No. 475 of 2011 on the files of the Court of the Additional District Judge - II, 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 her property for the purpose of drawing 400 k.V. Electric line/erecting tower from Thenkasi to Edamon.
2. The learned District Judge found that the respondent is entitled to enhanced compensation for 2025:KER:72770 CRP NO.184 OF 2019 3 the cutting of trees. Since the petitioner could not prove title, only an amount of Rs.5,000/- was awarded as compensation for diminution in utility. The original petition was allowed in part and the respondent was allowed to realise an additional amount of Rs.6,32,454/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of cutting of trees.
3. The order of the learned District Judge is impugned on the following grounds:
(i) The compensation for trees cut is high and erroneous.
(ii) The multiplier factor applied for determining the compensation for trees cut is wrong.
(iii) The learned 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.
2025:KER:72770 CRP NO.184 OF 2019 4
4. Heard Sri.E.M.Murugan, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. 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 steps for service of notice have not been taken, notice has not been served on the respondent 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 respondent. 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.
6. The learned District Judge has awarded an 2025:KER:72770 CRP NO.184 OF 2019 5 amount of Rs.5,000/- towards diminution in utility of the property. Taking into account the long possession of the property by the respondent, I find that the said amount is just and reasonable.
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. The compensation for trees cut has been fixed based on the factors laid down in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha and others [2007 (3) KLT 1] and Shaik Imambi v. Deputy Collector (LA) [2011 KHC 4183].
8. 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 2025:KER:72770 CRP NO.184 OF 2019 6 that the multiplier applied for 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 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. The impugned order is of the year 2017 and the original petition is of the year 2011. I find no reason to issue fresh notice to the respondent at this distance of time. Accordingly, the 2025:KER:72770 CRP NO.184 OF 2019 7 revision petition is dismissed on merits. The entire enhanced compensation shall be paid to the claimant 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 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