Dismissed¶237

Rajalakshmi v. Power Grid Corporation India Ltd.

Kerala HC18 Feb 2025CRP/533/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court civil revision petitions on compensation for 400 KV power lines of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.; diminution in land value; compensation for coconut, rubber, nutmeg, arecanut, pepper and other trees; multiplier 8 per KSEB v. Livisha (2007) 6 SCC 792; Sections 10 & 16 Telegraph Act; Section 151 Indian Electricity Act 1910; Section 42 Electricity Supply Act 1948; Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC; OP(Ele) Nos. 11/2012, 12/2012, 70/2014 and 126/2015, Additional District Court North Paravur; awards confirmed with 6% and 8% interest; all CRPs dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to any revision petitioner; all eight Civil Revision Petitions dismissed and the compensation orders of the Additional District Court, North Paravur (16.12.2017, 05.03.2019 and 11.03.2019) stand confirmed with interest as awarded. ¶237

Rajalakshmi Vs Power Grid Corporation India Ltd. — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶237

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation awarded for diminution in land value caused by drawing the 400 KV electric line is adequate — claimants contend it is too low as the value of the entire property is affected; the Corporation contends the awards are exorbitant. +3 more

¶209

Court's answer

Testing the award in O.P.(Ele) No.70/2014 on the touchstone of the Livisha principles, the Court found the order impugned in CRP Nos.426/2019 and 139/2020 liable to be confirmed; both revisions (by the claimant and the Corporation) lack merits and stand dismissed, and the order dated 11.03.2019 in O.P.(Ele) No.70/2014 stands confirmed.

¶237

Ratio / Principle

The compensation of Rs.86,15,600/- with 8% interest fixed by the District Court in O.P.(Ele) No.126/2015 is fair and reasonable and in tune with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Livisha's case; the impugned order in CRP Nos.474/2019 and 137/2020 is confirmed and both revisions stand dismissed.

¶258

Key takeaways

The compensation of Rs.85,13,500/- with 8% interest fixed in O.P.(Ele) No.11/2012 is fair and reasonable and in tune with the Livisha guidelines; CRP Nos.580 of 2018 and 44 of 2020 lack merits and stand dismissed, and the order dated 16.12.2017 in O.P.(Ele) No.11/2012 stands confirmed.ratio¶287
The compensation of Rs.11,59,100/- with 8% interest fixed in O.P.(Ele) No.12/2012 is fair and reasonable and in tune with the Livisha guidelines; CRP Nos.533 of 2018 and 664 of 2019 filed by the claimant and the Corporation lack merits and stand dismissed, and the order dated 16.12.2017 in O.P.(Ele) No.12/2012 stands confirmed.ratio¶303

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Batch of eight Civil Revision Petitions (CRP Nos. 580 & 533 of 2018; 426, 664 & 474 of 2019; 139, 44 & 137 of 2020) arising from compensation awards of the Additional District Court, North Paravur for 400 KV double-circuit lines drawn by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. over private properties in Rayamangalam and Arackappady villages. Claimants sought enhancement contending the compensation for diminution in land value and for trees cut was meagre; the Corporation contended the awards were exorbitant and should have been anchored to Government fair value. Applying KSEB v. Livisha (2007) 6 SCC 792, the Court adopted 8 as the multiplier for tree compensation and weighed each award on the touchstone of the Livisha principles (situs, distance and extent of the line, land value). Finding the District Court's awards fair and reasonable — Rs.12,17,237/- with 6% interest (O.P.(Ele) 70/2014), Rs.86,15,600/- with 8% interest (O.P.(Ele) 126/2015), Rs.85,13,500/- with 8% interest (O.P.(Ele) 11/2012) and Rs.11,59,100/- with 8% interest (O.P.(Ele) 12/2012) — the Court confirmed all four orders and dismissed all eight revisions.

¶1

2025:KER:28971

¶2

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶7

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 29TH MAGHA, 1946

¶8

CRP NO. 580 OF 2018

¶9

AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 16.12.2017 IN OP(ELE)

¶10

NO.11 OF 2012 AND OTHER CASES OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

¶11

COURT, NORTH PARAVUR

¶12

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶13

VARGHESE, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.ULHANNAN, KIZHKKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI KARA,RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE.

¶14

BY ADV.
SRI.P.C.HARIDAS

¶15

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE,MAVELIPURAM COLONY,KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682 030.

¶17

2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE - 17.

¶18

BY ADV.
SRI.MILLU DANDA PANI SC,
SMT.G SHEEBA GP

¶19

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 18.02.2025, ALONG WITH CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

2025:KER:28971

¶21

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶22

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶26

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 29TH MAGHA, 1946

¶27

CRP NO. 137 OF 2020

¶28

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2019 IN OP(ELE) NO.126
OF 2015 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR

¶29

REVISION PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT IN OP(ELE) 126/2015:

¶30

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
400 KV SUB STATION, PALLIKKARA,
KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KUMARAPURAM P.O.,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK-683 565,
REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER.

¶31

BY ADV

¶32

SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY

¶33

R ESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 6 & 2ND RESPONDENT IN OP(ELE)

¶34

126/2015:

¶35

1 HAWAMMA,AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.KOCHUMUHAMMAD, PIRAMBILLYKUDY, VENGOLA KARA, ARAKKAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK-683 554.

¶36

2 SUDHEER,AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KOCHUMUHAMMAD, PIRAMBILLYKUDY, VENGOLA KARA, ARAKKAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK-683 554.

¶37

3 JASMI,AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.KOCHUMUHAMMAD, PIRAMBILLYKUDY, VENGOLA KARA, ARAKKAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK-683 554.

¶38

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶39

¶40

2025:KER:28971

¶41

4 SHUKOOR,AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KOCHUMUHAMMAD, PIRAMBILLYKUDY, VENGOLA KARA, ARAKKAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK-683 554.

¶42

5 FATHIMA, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.KOCHUMUHAMMAD, PIRAMBILLYKUDY, VENGOLA KARA, ARAKKAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK-683 554.

¶43

6 KADHEEJA,AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.KOCHUMUHAMMAD, PIRAMBILLYKUDY, VENGOLA KARA, ARAKKAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK-683 554.

¶44

7 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 017.

¶45

BY ADVS.

¶46

SRI.P.C. HARIDAS PULICKAL CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI
SRI.SURESH V.S.(K/000350/1992)
SMT.G.SHEEBA, GP

¶47

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.02.2025, ALONG WITH CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶48

2025:KER:28971

¶49

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶50

¶51

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶52

PRESENT

¶53

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶54

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 29TH MAGHA, 1946

¶55

CRP NO. 533 OF 2018

¶56

AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 16.12.2017 IN OP(ELE)
NO.12 OF 2012 AND OTHER CASES OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

¶57

COURT, NORTH PARAVUR

¶58

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶59

RAJALAKSHMI, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O. ASHOKAN, KAPPILLIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE.

¶60

BY ADV
SRI.P.C.HARIDAS

¶61

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶62

1 POWER GRID CORPORATION INDIA LTD., CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682 030.

¶63

2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) POWER GRID CORPORATION INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKKODE – 17.

¶64

BY ADVS.
SMT.G SHEEBA,GP
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI,SC

¶65

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 18.02.2025, ALONG CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶66

2025:KER:28971

¶67

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶68

¶69

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶70

PRESENT

¶71

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶72

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 29TH MAGHA, 1946

¶73

CRP NO. 139 OF 2020

¶74

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.03.2019 IN OP(ELE) NO.70

¶75

OF 2014 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR

¶76

REVISION PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT IN OP(ELECTRICTY)

¶77

70/2014:

¶78

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE,
MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030,
REPRESENTED BY GEENRAL MANAGER

¶79

BY ADV
SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY

¶80

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/2ND RESPONDENT IN OP(ELECTRICITY)

¶81

70/2014:

¶82

1 AISHA UMMA,AGED 76 YEARS, W/O.MAITHEEN, PIRAMBILLYKUDY HOUSE, VENGOLA KARA, ARACKAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK-683554

¶83

2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE-673017

¶84

2025:KER:28971

¶85

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶86

¶87

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.HARIDAS PULICKAL CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI
SRI.SURESH V.S.(K/000350/1992)
SMT.G.SHEEBA, GP

¶88

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 18.02.2025, ALONG WITH CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶89

2025:KER:28971

¶90

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶91

¶92

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶93

PRESENT

¶94

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶95

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 29TH MAGHA, 1946

¶96

CRP NO. 426 OF 2019

¶97

AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 11.03.2019 IN OP(ELE)
NO.70 OF 2014 AND OTHER CASES OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT -

¶98

II, NORTH PARAVUR

¶99

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶100

AISHA UMMA,
AGED 70 YEARS,
W/O. MAITHEEN,
PIRAMBILLYKUDY HOUSE,
VENGOLA KARA, ARACKAPPADY VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶101

BY ADV
SRI.P.C.HARIDAS

¶102

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶103

1 POWER GRID CORPORATION INDIA LTD., CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030.

¶104

2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKKODE-17.

¶105

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶106

2025:KER:28971

¶107

¶108

BY ADVS.
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
SMT.G.SHEEBA, GP

¶109

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 18.02.2025, ALONG WITH CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶110

2025:KER:28971

¶111

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶112

¶113

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶114

PRESENT

¶115

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶116

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 29TH MAGHA, 1946

¶117

CRP NO. 474 OF 2019

¶118

AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 05.03.2019 IN OP(ELE)

¶119

NO.126 OF 2015 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH

¶120

PARAVUR

¶121

REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

¶122

1 HAWAMMA,

¶123

AGED 66 YEARS,

¶124

W/O. KOCHUMUHAMMED, PIRAMBILLYKUDY,
VENGOLA KARA, ARACKAPPADY VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶125

2 SUDHEER,

¶126

AGED 48 YEARS,

¶127

S/O. KOCHUMUHAMMED, PIRAMBILLYKUDY,
VENGOLA KARA, ARACKAPPADY VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶128

3JASMI,
AGED 42 YEARS,
D/O. KOCHUMUHAMMED, PIRAMBILLYKUDY,
VENGOLA KARA, ARACKAPPADY VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶129

4SHUKOOR,
AGED 41 YEARS,
S/O. KOCHUMUHAMMED, PIRAMBILLYKUDY,
VENGOLA KARA, ARACKAPPADY VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶130

5 FATHIMA, AGED 40 YEARS,

¶131

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶132

¶133

2025:KER:28971

¶134

D/O. KOCHUMUHAMMED, PIRAMBILLYKUDY, VENGOLA KARA, ARACKAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶135

6KADEEJA,
AGED 37 YEARS,
D/O. KOCHUMUHAMMED, PIRAMBILLYKUDY,
VENGOLA KARA, ARACKAPPADY VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶136

BY ADV
SRI.P.C.HARIDAS

¶137

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶138

1 POWER GRID CORPORATION INDIA LTD., NO.400 KV SUB STATION, PALLIKKARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KUMARAPURAM P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN - 683 356.

¶139

2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKKODE - 673 017.

¶140

BY ADVS.
SRI.MILLU DANDA PANI,SC
SMT.G.SHEEBA, GP

¶141

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 18.02.2025, ALONG WITH CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶142

2025:KER:28971

¶143

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶144

¶145

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶146

PRESENT

¶147

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶148

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 29TH MAGHA, 1946

¶149

CRP NO. 664 OF 2019

¶150

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2017 IN OP(ELE) NO.12
OF 2012 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR

¶151

PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶152

THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE,
MAVELIPURAM COLONY,
KAKKANAD,
COCHIN - 682030.

¶153

BY ADV
SRI.ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA

¶154

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT - 2:

¶155

1RAJALAKSHMI,
AGED 56 YEARS,
W/O. ASHOKAN, KAPPILLIL HOUSE,
PULLUVAZHI KARA,
RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNAD TALUK,
PIN - 683545.

¶156

2SPECIAL THASILDHAR (LA),
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
CHEVARAMBALAM,
KOZHIKODE - 673017.

¶157

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.HARIDAS

¶158

2025:KER:28971

¶159

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶160

¶161

SHRI.SURESH V.S.
SMT.G.SHEEBA, GP

¶162

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.02.2025, ALONG WITH CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶163

2025:KER:28971

¶164

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶165

¶166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶167

PRESENT

¶168

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶169

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 29TH MAGHA, 1946

¶170

CRP NO. 44 OF 2020

¶171

AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 16.12.2017 IN OP(ELE)
NO.11 OF 2012 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH

¶172

PARAVUR

¶173

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶174

M/S POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED,
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, KAKKANADU,
KOCHI-682030.

¶175

BY ADVS.
SMT.V.A.HARITHA
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(S-571)

¶176

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶177

1 V. VARGHESE, S/O. ULAHANNAN, AGED 65, KIZHAKKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, PAUL K. JOHN, AGED 53, S/O. ULAHANNAN, KIZHAKKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PIN-683541.

¶178

2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE- 673017.

¶179

2025:KER:28971

¶180

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶181

¶182

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.HARIDAS
SRI.SURESH V.S.
SMT.G.SHEEBA, GP

¶183

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 18.02.2025, ALONG WITH CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶184

2025:KER:28971

¶185

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶186

¶187

K.BABU, J.

¶188

CRP Nos. 580, 533 of 2018, 426, 664, 474 of 2019 & 139, 44, 137 of 2020

¶189

Dated this the 18^th day of Februrary, 2025

¶190

O R D E R

¶191

Common questions arise for consideration in all these Civil Revision Petitions. The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited drew 400 KV double circuit lines through the properties of the claimants. The respective claimants filed petitions under Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act read with Section 151 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 42 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 before the Additional District Court, North Paravur, claiming enhanced compensation under various heads. The Trial Court allowed those applications. The claimants approached this Court contending that the compensation awarded is meagre, whereas the Power Grid Corporation challenged the awards contending that the amount awarded is exorbitant.

¶192

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES
16

¶193

2025:KER:28971

¶194

CRP Nos. 426 of 2019 and 139 of 2020

¶195

The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited had drawn a 400 KV electric line through the property of the claimant comprised in Sy.No.337/6 of Arackappady Village. The property was a wet land, cultivated with various crops including plantains. The Corporation quantified the compensation as Rs.25,263/-. The Trial Court granted a sum of Rs.12,17,237/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% from 04.07.2011 till the date of realisation.

¶196

CRP No.474 of 2019 and 137 of 2020

¶197

The case of the claimants is that their property is used for the purpose of drawing 400 KV Cochin-Trichur electric line. The claimants received only an amount of Rs.7,12,170/- towards compensation for various trees cut and removed from their property. The Trial Court granted a sum of Rs.86,15,600/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of cutting of trees till the date of realisation.

¶198

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES
17

¶199

2025:KER:28971

¶200

CRP No.580 of 2018 and 44 of 2020

¶201

The case of the claimant is that he is the owner in possession of 26.15 Ares of property comprised in Re.Sy.Nos.203/2, 203/17, 203/4 of Rayamangalam Village. The land is very fertile, cultivated with yielding and nonyielding trees. For the purpose of drawing 400 KV KochiTrichur electric line through his property, trees were cut and removed by the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited. The Trial Court granted a sum of Rs.85,13,500/as compensation with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of cutting of trees till the date of realisation.

¶202

CRP No.533 of 2018 and 664 of 2019

¶203

The case of the claimant is that she is the owner in possession of 34.8 Ares of property comprised in Re.Sy.Nos. 205/2, 205/3 and 205/4 of Rayamangalam Village. The land is very fertile, cultivated with yielding and non-yielding trees. For the purpose of drawing 400 KV KochiTrichur electric line through her property, trees were cut and removed by the Power Grid Corporation of India

¶204

2025:KER:28971

¶205

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES
18

¶206

Limited. The Trial Court granted a sum of Rs.11,59,100/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of cutting of trees till the date of realisation.

¶207

I have heard the learned counsel for the claimants, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Special Tahasildar.

¶208

The common grounds raised by the claimants are the following:-

¶209

(a)The compensation for diminution in land value granted is too low, in view of the fact that the value of the entire properties is affected by way of drawing the line.

¶210

(b) The land value determined by the District Court is too low.

¶211

¶212

2025:KER:28971

¶213

¶214

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶215

(d) The situs of the land was not considered while awarding compensation.

¶216

The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited raised the following contentions:-

¶217

The land value fixed by the Trial Court for awarding compensation towards diminution in the land value is much higher than the fair value fixed by the Government. The claimants did not place any credible materials to establish the land value, and therefore, the Trial Court should have relied on the fair value fixed by the Government. The report of the Commissioner is not a valuable piece of evidence to enter into a conclusion regarding the land value. The Commissioner assessed the value of the properties long time after the lines were drawn. The claimants were sufficiently compensated even prior to the institution of the claim petitions. For fixation of the compensation towards cutting and removal of the trees, the Trial Court ignored the detailed valuation statement prepared by the Competent Authority at the time of cutting, but relied on the

¶218

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶219

¶220

2025:KER:28971

¶221

assessment made by the Commissioner which is not at all relevant. The Corporation has not acquired the properties. It has only drawn electric lines over the properties, by which the value of the properties is not substantially diminished.

¶222

In KSEB v. Livisha [(2007) 6 SCC 792] , the Supreme Court held that the proper multiplier to be used for fixation of compensation on the value of trees is 8. While dealing with the question of diminution in the land value in

¶223

KSEB v. Livisha , the Supreme Court held thus:-

¶224

“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 track 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 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.”

¶225

Now, I shall consider the impugned awards on

¶226

the touchstone of the principles discussed above.

¶227

CRP Nos.426 of 2019 and 139 of 2020

¶228

The affected area by way of drawing the line is estimated as 10.9 Ares. The Commissioner appointed by the

¶229

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶230

¶231

2025:KER:28971

¶232

Trial Court prepared Ext.C1 report which has become part of evidence as per Order XXVI Rule 10 of the CPC. It has come out in evidence that the property abuts a Panchayat road. The claimant relied on Ext. A1 title deed dated 29.11.2007. Relying on Ext.C1 report and Ext.A1 title deed, the Trial Court fixed the market value as Rs.90,000/- per cent. When converted into cents the affected area is admittedly 26.9 cents. The Trial Court assessed the value towards diminution in the land value as Rs.24,21,000/-. The Court held that the claimant is entitled to half of the total value, which comes to Rs.12,10,500/-. The compensation for 8 plantains cut and removed was fixed by applying the following formula:

¶233

Therefore, the claimant was entitled to a total compensation of Rs.12,42,500/-. The Corporation had already paid Rs.25,263/- at the time of drawing the line. Therefore, the Court fixed the compensation as Rs.12,17,237/- with 6% interest from 04.07.2011 till the date of realisation.

¶234

2025:KER:28971

¶235

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶236

¶237

Considering the assessment of compensation on the touchstone of the principles discussed above, this Court is of the view that the order impugned in CRP Nos.426/2019 and 139/2020 is liable to be confirmed. The Civil Revision Petitions filed by the claimant and the Corporation lack merits and stand dismissed. The order dated 11.03.2019 in O.P.(Ele) No.70/2014 stands confirmed.

¶238

CRP No.474 of 2019 and 137 of 2020

¶239

The Commissioner reported that 17 coconut trees were cut and removed. The total coconuts obtained in an year from 1 coconut tree was assessed as 197 (after deducting droppings and expenditure). The market price of one coconut, as published in the newspaper was, Rs.8. Based on Livisha’s case, 8 is taken as the multiplier. The Court applied the following formula to assess the value of coconut trees:-

¶240

197 X 17 X 8 X Rs.8 = Rs.2,14,336/-

¶241

The Commissioner reported that 100 rubber trees were cut and removed. The quantity of latex collected

¶242

¶243

2025:KER:28971

¶244

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶245

from a rubber tree was fixed at 13Kg per year. The price of rubber at the relevant time was Rs.200/- per Kg. The Court applied the following formula for assessing the compensation towards cutting and removal of the rubber trees:

¶246

100 X 13 Kg X Rs.200 X 8 = Rs.20,80,000/- [25% of the income deducted towards expenditure and fixed the compensation at Rs.15,60,000/-].

¶247

100 nutmeg trees were also cut and removed from the property. The Court fixed the total number of nutmegs obtained in one year from a tree as 3,000. The Court calculated the rate of premature fall at 25% and 25% towards expenditure. Therefore, the number of nutmegs was assessed as 1,688. The dried nutmegs obtained was assessed as 12Kg. The Trial Court assessed that from 1 nutmeg 2 gms of Jathipathri is obtained. The Commissioner reported that the price of Jathi was Rs.200/- and Jathipathri was Rs.800/-. The value of Jathi was assessed at

¶248

¶249

2025:KER:28971

¶250

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶251

Rs.19,20,000/- (100 X 12 X 200 X 8). The value of Jathipathri was assessed at Rs.21,12,000/- (100 X 3.3 X 800 X 8). Therefore, the total amount towards loss of nutmeg trees was assessed at Rs.40,32,000/-

¶252

The Commissioner reported that 18 arecanut trees were cut and removed from the property. The price of dried arecanut is Rs.110/-. Based on the assessment that 8 Kgs of arecanuts are obtained per year from 1 arecanut tree, the value of arecanut was assessed at Rs.1,26,720/(110 X 18 X 8 X 8). The claimants were found to be entitled to Rs.59,33,056/- as value of improvements. The affected area of land due to the drawing of electric line was fixed as 26.30 Ares (64.99 cents). The land value was fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- per cent. So the value of the land affected was assessed at Rs.64,99,000/- (64.99 X 1,00,000/-). Out of this, 50% was deducted towards diminution of land value, and hence, the value of land injuriously affected was assessed at Rs.32,49,500/-. An extent of 1.47 Ares of land was used for the erection of tower. The land value at the place where the tower was erected was fixed at Rs.40,000/- per cent. So, the

¶253

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES
25

¶254

2025:KER:28971

¶255

value was fixed at Rs.1,45,200/- (3.63 cents X 40,000). Therefore, the total compensation entitled to the claimants was assessed in the following manner:-

¶256

Value of trees cut and removed = Rs.59,33,056/-

¶257

Value of land = Rs.33,94,700/Total = Rs.93,27,756/-

¶258

The Corporation had already paid Rs.7,12,170/towards compensation. The balance compensation to which the claimants were entitled was assessed at Rs. 86,15,586/which is rounded to Rs.86,15,600/- with 8% interest from the date of cutting of trees till the date of realisation. The compensation fixed by the District Court is fair and reasonable. The compensation is in tune with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Livisha’s case. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order in CRP Nos.474/2019 and 137/2020 is liable to be confirmed. Civil Revision Petitions filed by the claimant and the Corporation lack merits and stand dismissed. The

¶259

¶260

2025:KER:28971

¶261

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶262

order dated 05.03.2019 in O.P.(Ele) No.126/2015 stands confirmed.

¶263

CRP No.580 of 2018 and 44 of 2020

¶264

The Commissioner reported that 32 coconut trees were cut and removed. The Trial Court followed the assessment of value made in O.P.(C)No.10/2012 and the value of the coconuts was fixed at Rs.4,03,456/- (197 X 32 X 8 X Rs.8). In Ext.C1 report, the Commissioner stated that 40 numbers of pepper plants were cut and removed. Yield of 1 pepper plant was fixed as 3 Kgs per year, out of which 25% was deducted towards expenses. Net yield of 1 pepper plant therefore, was fixed at 2.250 Kgs. The value of 1 Kg of pepper was Rs.250/- at the relevant time. The Court fixed the compensation as Rs.1,80,000/- (2.25 X Rs.250 X 8 X 40 Nos.).

¶265

The Commissioner reported that 44 nutmeg trees were cut and removed. The Trial Court followed the assessment of value applied in O.P.(C) No.10/2012 and other cases. The Trial Court assessed the value of Jathi at

¶266

¶267

2025:KER:28971

¶268

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶269

Rs.8,44,800/- (44 X 12 X 200 X 8) and the value of Jathipathri at Rs.9,29,280/- (44 X 3.3 X 800 X 8). Thereby, the total income obtained from the nutmeg trees is assessed at Rs.17,74,080/-.

¶270

40 arecanut trees were cut and removed. The

¶271

valuation arrived towards cutting and removal of 40 arecanut trees is as follows:-

¶272

110 X 8Kg X 8 X 40 = Rs.2,81,600/-

¶273

3 jack fruit trees were also cut and removed. The Trial Court fixed Rs.20,000/- for the various trees cut and removed. For various other trees including 88 anjili trees, 4 mango trees, 88 timber trees, mahagony trees etc. the Trial Court fixed a compensation of Rs.80,000/-. The claimant was found to be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.27,39,136/- towards the value of trees cut and removed.

¶274

Relying on Ext.B4 fair value notification and Ext.C1(a) report, wherein it is mentioned that the land has road frontage on two sides, the Trial Court fixed the value of land at Rs.2,00,000/- per cent. The Trial Court found that the

¶275

2025:KER:28971

¶276

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶277

¶278

area of the land injuriously affected is 26.15 Ares (64.59 cents). The value of total affected area is fixed as 64.59 X Rs.2,00,000/- which is equal to Rs.1,29,18,000/-. The District Court assessed 50% as deduction towards diminution of land value due to the drawing of electric line. Hence, the value of the land injuriously affected was assessed at Rs.64,59,000/-. The total compensation entitled to the claimant was assessed as follows:-

¶279

Value of trees cut and removed = Rs.27,39,136/-

¶280

Value of land injuriously affected = Rs.64,59,000/-

¶281

Total compensation = Rs.91,98,136/-

¶282

The claimant had already received Rs.6,84,726/towards compensation. The balance compensation entitled to the claimant is found to be Rs.85,13,410/- which is rounded to Rs.85,13,500/- with 8% interest from the date of cutting of trees till the date of realisation. The compensation fixed by the District Court is fair and reasonable. The compensation is in tune with the guidelines

¶283

¶284

2025:KER:28971

¶285

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶286

issued by the Supreme Court in Livisha’s case. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶287

CRP Nos.580 of 2018 and 44 of 2020 lack merits and stand dismissed. The order dated 16.12.2017 in O.P.(Ele) No.11/2012 stands confirmed.

¶288

CRP No.533 of 2018 and 664 of 2019

¶289

6 coconut trees were cut and removed. The Trial Court followed the method of calculation adopted in O.P.(C) No.10 of 2012. So, the compensation towards cutting of coconut trees was assessed at Rs.75,648/- (197 X 6 X 8 X Rs. 8)

¶290

Three Pepper plants were cut and removed. The compensation was assessed at Rs.13,500/- (2.25 X 250 X 8 X 3 Nos). For various other trees, the Trial Court fixed the compensation at Rs.20,000/-. So, the total compensation entitled to the claimant towards cutting and removal of the trees was assessed by the Court at Rs.1,09,148/-.

¶291

The Court assessed the area injuriously affected by way of drawing electric line as 29.90 Ares (73.85 cents).

¶292

¶293

2025:KER:28971

¶294

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

¶295

Relying on Ext.B16 fair value notification and Ext.C1(e) plan, the Court fixed the value of the property at the relevant time at Rs.60,000/- per cent. The value of the land injuriously affected was assessed at Rs.44,31,000/- (73.85 X 60,000) out of which 75% was deducted towards diminution of land value, and hence, the value of the land injuriously affected was assessed at Rs.11,07,750/-. The claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.1,09,148/- towards the value of trees cut and removed. The total compensation entitled to the claimant was assessed as follows:-

¶296

Value of trees cut and removed = Rs. 1,09,148/-

¶297

Value of land injuriously affected = Rs.11,07,750/-

¶298

Total compensation = Rs.12,16,898/-

¶299

The claimant had already received Rs.57,801/towards compensation. The balance compensation entitled to the claimant is found to be Rs.11,59,100/- with 8% interest from the date of cutting of trees till the date of realisation. The compensation fixed by the District Court is fair and reasonable. The compensation is in tune with the

¶300

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES
31

¶301

2025:KER:28971

¶302

guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Livisha’s case. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶303

CRP Nos.533 of 2018 and 664 of 2019 filed by the claimant and the Corporation lack merits and stand dismissed. The order dated 16.12.2017 in O.P.(Ele) No.12/2012 stands confirmed.

¶304

 Sd/-

¶305

 K.BABU
 JUDGE

¶306

VPK

Rajalakshmi v. Power Grid Corporation India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajalakshmi v. Power Grid Corporation India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Mohammed Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan N.P. Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Aisha Umma

Aisha Umma Vs Power Grid Corporation India Ltd.

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Hawamma