Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited vs J.Joseph on 19 August, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
CRP NO. 178 OF 2019 : 1 :
2025:KER:62596
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRP NO. 178 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2017 IN OP ELE NO.481
OF 2011 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT , KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
PALLIPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY
ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, G. AMBIKA DEVI.
BY ADV SRI.E.M.MURUGAN
RESPONDENT/S:
J.JOSEPH
S/O. MATHAI JOSEPH, KOTTUR VEEDU,
KOTTAVASAL MURI, ARAYANCAVU VILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAM TALUK 691 001.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP NO. 178 OF 2019 : 2 :
2025:KER:62596
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, challenging the order dated 28.10.2017 in O.P(Ele) No. 481/2011 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 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for short) 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 his property for the purpose of drawing 400 K.V. Electric line/ erecting CRP NO. 178 OF 2019 : 3 : 2025:KER:62596 tower from Thenkasi to Edamon.
2. The learned Additional District Judge found that the respondent is entitled to enhanced compensation for the cutting of trees. The original petition was allowed in part and the respondent was allowed to realise an additional amount of Rs.13,91,621/- 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:
(i) The compensation granted for trees cut is wrong, high and unfair.
(ii) The learned Additional District Judge went wrong in fixing the rate of interest at 9% per annum CRP NO. 178 OF 2019 : 4 : 2025:KER:62596 and awarding the same from the date of cutting of trees.
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. Notice was ordered 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 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. CRP NO. 178 OF 2019 : 5 :
2025:KER:62596 Sri.Murugan argued by reiterating the grounds pleaded in the memorandum of revision petition.
6. The learned District Judge held that since the respondent has not proved the ownership of the property, he is not entitled to compensation towards diminution of market value and awarded only Rs.25,000/- towards diminution in utility of the property in possession of the responent. The respondent has been paid compensation of Rs.14,45,500/- for the trees cut from the property in his possession. On going through the impugned order, I find that the compensation for the trees cut has been granted taking into account the factors laid down in Shaik Imambi v. Deputy Collector (LA) [2011 KHC 4183]. The multiplier factor adopted by the learned District Judge for determining the CRP NO. 178 OF 2019 : 6 : 2025:KER:62596 compensation for trees cut is also 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 compensation for trees cut is high and unfair, is without any basis.
7. 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.
CRP NO. 178 OF 2019 : 7 :
2025:KER:62596 No other points have been argued. I do not find any merit in the revision petition. The impugned order is of the year 2017. I find no reason to issue fresh notice to the respondent at this distance of time. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed on merits. The entire enhanced compensation shall be paid to the claimant 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 application for condonation of delay and other interlocutory application, if any, will stand closed.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SB