Kerala High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs Ancy Joseph on 29 September, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
CRP NO. 35 OF 2019 : 1 :
2025:KER:72768
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. 35 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.11.2017 IN OPELE
NO.483 OF 2011 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
PALLIPPURAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REP. BY ITS
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, G.AMBIKA DEVI.
BY ADV SRI.E.M.MURUGAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
ANCY JOSEPH,
W/O JOSEPH, KOTTUR VEEDU,
KOTTAVASAL MURI, ARYANKAVU VILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 673 001.
BY ADV SRI.ARUN BABU
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP NO. 35 OF 2019 : 2 :
2025:KER:72768
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, challenging the order dated 13.11.2017 in O.P(Ele) No. 483/2011 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 CRP NO. 35 OF 2019 : 3 : 2025:KER:72768 tower from Thenkasi to Edamon.
2. The learned Additional District Judge found that the respondent is entitled to additional compensation of Rs.8,59,273/- for the cutting of trees. Since the respondent could not prove title to the property, only Rs.15,000/- was paid toward diminution in land value. The original petition was allowed in part and the respondent was allowed to realise an additional amount of Rs.8,74,273/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of cutting of trees till realisation 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 awarded for trees cut and removed is exorbitant.
(ii) The multiplier factor applied for CRP NO. 35 OF 2019 : 4 : 2025:KER:72768 determining the compensation for trees cut is wrong.
(iii) 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.E.M.Murugan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Arun Babu, the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. The loss sustained due to the cutting of yielding tree 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.
6. The compensation for trees cut and removed awarded by the learned Additional District Judge is based on the relevant factors laid down by the Apex CRP NO. 35 OF 2019 : 5 : 2025:KER:72768 Court in Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy and Others [(2002) 3 SCC 527], Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha and others [2007 (3) KLT 1] and Shaik Imambi v. Deputy Collector LA [(2011) 11 SCC 639] is just and reasonable.
7. The multiplier factor adopted by the learned Additional 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.
8. As far as the contention regarding rate of interest awarded, the same cannot be sustained in CRP NO. 35 OF 2019 : 6 : 2025:KER:72768 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 Additional 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.
9. Taking into consideration that the respondent was having possession over the property and she was doing cultivation therein prior to drawing of line, the learned Additional District Judge awarded Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards diminution in utility of the property in possession of the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find the same to be just CRP NO. 35 OF 2019 : 7 : 2025:KER:72768 and reasonable.
No other points have been argued. I do not find any merit in the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. The entire enhanced compensation shall be paid to the respondent 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 to the respondent.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SB