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
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
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
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
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
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
