Kerala High Court
Essaki vs Powergrid Corporation Of India Ltd on 19 November, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
CRP NO. 376 OF 2020 : 1 :
2025:KER:89794
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. 376 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.1.2020 IN OPELE NO.310 OF 2012
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VI, KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONERS:
1 ESSAKI, AGED 70 YEARS
W/O.MADASWAMY, MOHANAVILASAM,
VENTURE P.O., 4 FLORENCE, ARYANKAVU VILLAGE,
PATHANAMPURAM TALUK-679 503.
2 MARIMUTHU, AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.BALAN, MOHANAVILASAM, VENTURE P.O., 4
FLORENCE, ARYANKAVU VILLAGE,
PATHANAMPURAM TALUK-679 503.
BY ADV SRI.ARUN BABU
RESPONDENT:
POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
VILAGOM PURAYIDAM, DOCTORS LINE,
PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.
R BY SC SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP NO. 376 OF 2020 : 2 :
2025:KER:89794
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 07.01.2020 in O.P.(Ele) No.310/2012 passed by the Court of the Additional District Judge- VI, Kollam.
2. The revision petitioners are the petitioners in the original petition. The original petition has been filed by the petitioners 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 their 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:- CRP NO. 376 OF 2020 : 3 :
2025:KER:89794 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 by the petitioners that the assessment of value of yielding trees is not based on evidence adduced. The petitioner state that though they had produced Ext.A11 deposition of the Agricultural Officer produced in O.P.(Elc.) No.197/2006 and Exts.A4, A5 and A7 to A9 exemplars of yield, the learned District Judge ignored the same while assessing the value of yielding trees.
4. As regards the fixation of land value, it is contended by the petitioners that Ext.A14 exemplar deed brought out in evidence which could have been the touchstone for determination of compensation CRP NO. 376 OF 2020 : 4 : 2025:KER:89794 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 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 CRP NO. 376 OF 2020 : 5 : 2025:KER:89794 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 in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Additional District Court-VI, 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 SB