Power Grid Corporation Of India vs Nafeesa
2025 Latest Caselaw 9317 Ker

Kerala High Court

Power Grid Corporation Of India vs Nafeesa on 29 September, 2025

Author: Murali Purushothaman

Bench: Murali Purushothaman

CRP NO. 115 OF 2018       : 1 :


                                            2025:KER:72776

        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. 115 OF 2018

        AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.04.2017 IN OPELE

 NO.167 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS

                  COURT - II, MANJERI

REVISION PETITIONER:

         POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA
         REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER,
         UGRAPURAM, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.


         BY ADV SRI.E.M.MURUGAN


RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

         NAFEESA, AGED 40 YEARS
         W/O.HAMEED, VEPPUKARAN KUNDU(H),
         KUNIYIL, KEEZHUPARAMBA (PO),
         KEEZHUPARAMBU AMSOM DESAM,
         MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673001.


         BY ADV SRI.O.D.SIVADAS


     THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 29.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP NO. 115 OF 2018     : 2 :


                                       2025:KER:72776




                      ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, challenging

the order dated 10.04.2017 in O.P(Ele) No.

167/2011 on the files of the Court of the

Additional District Judge-II, Manjeri. 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 Mysore to

2025:KER:72776

Kozhikode.

2. The learned Additional District Judge found

that the respondent is entitled to additional

compensation of Rs.31,552/- for the cutting of trees

and Rs.98,000/- for the diminution in land value.

The original petition was allowed in part and the

respondent was allowed to realise an additional

amount of Rs.1,29,522/- 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 land value fixed is higher than the fair value of the property fixed by the Government.

                                              2025:KER:72776

              (ii)    The     learned   Additional
          District    Judge     went    wrong        in
          relying       on       the       Advocate

Commissioner's report to ascertain the value of the property.

(iii) The learned Additional District Judge went wrong in fixing the percentage of diminution in land value at 40%.

(iv) The multiplier factor applied for determining the compensation for trees cut is wrong.

(v) 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.O.D.Sivadas, the

2025:KER:72776

learned counsel for the respondent.

5. As regards the contention of the revision

petitioner that the land value of the property fixed

is higher than its fair value fixed by the

Government, this Court in Xavier .T.T v Power

Grid Corporation of India Ltd [2024 KHC

1278] held as follows:

"9. The contention of the Corporation that the Government having fixed the fair value, the court below could not have fixed a higher value is liable to be rejected since, while assessing the damage sustained and fixing the compensation, the court is not bound by the guidelines / orders issued by the Government."

Therefore, in the light of the said decision, the

aforesaid contention of the petitioner is not

sustainable.

2025:KER:72776

6. On going through paragraph No.24 of the

impugned order, I find that the contention of the

revision petitioner that the learned Additional

District Judge solely relied on the report of the

Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the value of

the property is not correct. The land value has been

fixed as Rs.35,000/- per cent considering the situs

of the property. I find no reason to interfere with

the finding of the learned Additional District Judge

with regard to fixation of land value.

7. The learned Additional District Judge has

fixed the percentage of diminution in land value as

40%. According to the revision petitioner, as per

the guidelines for corridor compensation as fixed by

the Government of India, only 15% of the land value

can be fixed towards diminution value of land for

2025:KER:72776

line corridor. This Court in Power Grid

Corporation of India Ltd v. Thomas A.A [2024

KHC 1417] has held that, while fixing the

compensation towards diminution in land value,

the Court is not bound by the guidelines issued by

the Government. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha and

others [2007 (3) KLT 1] held as follows:

"10. The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small tract of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion would be determinative. The value of the land would also be a relevant factor. The owner of the land

2025:KER:72776

furthermore, in a given situation may lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used."

The nature of the land, the cultivation therein, the

commercial importance of the area and the manner

in which the land was affected by drawing of the

lines are all factors to be considered for fixing the

land value. The line drawn is a 400 KV electric line.

Restrictions are prescribed under the Indian

Electricity Rules for use of the property over which

the line is drawn. The normal user of the property is

affected by the drawal of the line.I find no reason to

interfere with the finding regarding the fixation of

percentage of diminution in land value.

8. The multiplier factor adopted by the learned

Additional District Judge for determining the

2025:KER:72776

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.

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 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.

2025:KER:72776

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. The application for condonation of

delay and other interlocutory application, if any,

will stand closed.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SB