Varghese Vs Power Grid Corporation of India — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Varghese Vs Power Grid Corporation of India — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation granted by the Trial Court towards diminution in land value caused by drawing of the 400 KV electric line is adequate, given that the value of the entire properties is affected. +4 more

Court's answer

The order dated 11.03.2019 in O.P.(Ele) No.70/2014 is liable to be confirmed; the Civil Revision Petitions by the claimant (CRP 426/2019) and the Corporation (CRP 139/2020) lack merits and stand dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

Applying KSEB v. Livisha, the multiplier for fixation of compensation on the value of trees cut and removed is 8, and this Court adopted that multiplier in assessing the awards.

Key takeaways

The compensation fixed by the District Court in O.P.(Ele) No.126/2015 is fair, reasonable and in tune with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Livisha's case; the impugned order is confirmed and CRP Nos.474/2019 and 137/2020 stand dismissed.ratio¶258
The compensation fixed by the District Court in O.P.(Ele) No.11/2012 is fair, reasonable and in tune with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Livisha's case; the impugned order is confirmed and CRP Nos.580 of 2018 and 44 of 2020 stand dismissed.ratio¶282

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compensation — drawing of 400 KV double circuit electric lines over private properties — claims under Ss.10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act read with S.151 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and S.42 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 — Trial Court (Additional District Court, North Paravur) allowed the claim petitions; claimants sought further enhancement while Power Grid Corporation contended the awards were exorbitant — Held (K. Babu, J.): following KSEB v. Livisha (2007) 6 SCC 792, the proper multiplier for fixation of compensation on the value of trees is 8, and it was applied to coconut, rubber, nutmeg, arecanut, pepper and other trees; the awards granting compensation for trees cut and removed together with deductions of 50% (and in one case 75%) towards diminution in land value, with interest at 6%/8%, are fair, reasonable and in tune with the Livisha guidelines — all Civil Revision Petitions filed by the claimants and by the Corporation lack merits and stand dismissed; orders in O.P.(Ele) Nos.70/2014 (dated 11.03.2019), 126/2015 (dated 05.03.2019), 11/2012 and 12/2012 (common order dated 16.12.2017) confirmed.

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

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

CRP NO. 580 OF 2018

AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 16.12.2017 IN OP(ELE)

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

COURT, NORTH PARAVUR

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

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

BY ADV.
SRI.P.C.HARIDAS

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

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

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

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

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:

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

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

CRP NO. 137 OF 2020

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

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

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

BY ADV

SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY

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

126/2015:

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

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

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

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

2025:KER:28971

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

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

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

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

BY ADVS.

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

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:

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

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

CRP NO. 533 OF 2018

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

COURT, NORTH PARAVUR

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

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

BY ADV
SRI.P.C.HARIDAS

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

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

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

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

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

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

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

CRP NO. 139 OF 2020

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

OF 2014 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR

REVISION PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT IN OP(ELECTRICTY)

70/2014:

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

BY ADV
SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY

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

70/2014:

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

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

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

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

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:

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

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

CRP NO. 426 OF 2019

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

II, NORTH PARAVUR

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

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

BY ADV
SRI.P.C.HARIDAS

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

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

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

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

2025:KER:28971

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

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:

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

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

CRP NO. 474 OF 2019

AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 05.03.2019 IN OP(ELE)

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

PARAVUR

REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

1 HAWAMMA,

AGED 66 YEARS,

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

2 SUDHEER,

AGED 48 YEARS,

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

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

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

5 FATHIMA, AGED 40 YEARS,

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

2025:KER:28971

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

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

BY ADV
SRI.P.C.HARIDAS

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

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

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

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

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:

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

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

CRP NO. 664 OF 2019

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

PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:

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

BY ADV
SRI.ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT - 2:

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

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

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.HARIDAS

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

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

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:

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

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

CRP NO. 44 OF 2020

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

PARAVUR

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

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

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

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT:

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.

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

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

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

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:

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

K.BABU, J.

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

Dated this the 18^th day of Februrary, 2025

O R D E R

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.

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES
16

2025:KER:28971

CRP Nos. 426 of 2019 and 139 of 2020

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.

CRP No.474 of 2019 and 137 of 2020

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.

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES
17

2025:KER:28971

CRP No.580 of 2018 and 44 of 2020

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.

CRP No.533 of 2018 and 664 of 2019

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

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES
18

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.

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.

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

(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.

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

(c) The properties of the claimants are situated in prominent places in the locality with road access.

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

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

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

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

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

2025:KER:28971

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.

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

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

“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.”

Now, I shall consider the impugned awards on

the touchstone of the principles discussed above.

CRP Nos.426 of 2019 and 139 of 2020

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

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

2025:KER:28971

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:

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.

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

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.

CRP No.474 of 2019 and 137 of 2020

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:-

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

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

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

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:

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/-].

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

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

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/-

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

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES
25

2025:KER:28971

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:-

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

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

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

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

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

CRP No.580 of 2018 and 44 of 2020

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.).

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

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

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/-.

40 arecanut trees were cut and removed. The

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

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

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.

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

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

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:-

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

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

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

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

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

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

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.

CRP No.533 of 2018 and 664 of 2019

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)

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/-.

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

2025:KER:28971

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES

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:-

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

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

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

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

CRP NO.580 OF 2018 & CONN. CASES
31

2025:KER:28971

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

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.

 Sd/-

 K.BABU
 JUDGE

VPK