The court applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in KSEB v. Livisha for determining the compensation payable towards diminution in land value due to the drawing of high-tension electric lines.

Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024 The revision petitioner, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd ('the Corporation' for short), is aggrieved by the enhanced compensation ordered to be paid to the respondents towards diminution in land value, consequent upon the drawing of 400 KV electric lines across their properties by the Corporation. The essential facts are as under;

In order to facilitate drawing of 400 KV electric lines for the smooth transmission of power in the Mysore-Kozhikode sector, large number of trees were cut from the respondents' properties. According to the respondents, the drawing of high tension lines had rendered the land underneath and adjacent useless, resulting in diminution of the land value. In spite of the huge loss suffered by the respondents, only small amounts were granted as compensation. Hence, the respondents filed the original petition, seeking enhanced compensation towards the value of trees cut and diminution in land value. Being dissatisfied with the enhancement of compensation awarded by the court, the respondents preferred civil revision petition and the same was allowed by this Court and the case remanded back with a direction to determine yield from each tree and to consider all components of diminution in land value including prevailing market price of the land and any new factor which may be brought to the notice of the court by the respondents. After remand, the respondents filed a statement before the court below clarifying that they are not claiming additional compensation for loss for the improvements. Accordingly, the court below considered the claim for enhanced compensation towards diminution in land value alone and passed the impugned order.

2. After remand, it was argued on behalf of the respondents that, fixation of lower the land value without proper consideration of essential facts had resulted in the percentage of diminution being fixed on the lower side. It was submitted that the property involved in Ext.A8

document, which is a similar land, was sold at Rs.75,000/- per cent. Reliance was placed on the property involved in O.P.No.74 of 2010 to claim that the land value should not be less than Rs.35,000/- per cent. The findings in the Advocate Commissioner's report was also pressed into service to establish similarity between the lands involved.

3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the petitioner Corporation had argued that a fair and adequate compensation had been awarded after considering all relevant factors, including Ext.A7 fair value statement and G.O.(Rt) No.581/2010/RD dated 04.02.2010. It was contended that the property involved in Ext.A8 document is not having similar locational features and is not similarly situated land and a higher price had been paid by the buyer of that property, since the transaction was commercial in nature.

4. Although respondents had relied on Ext.A8 document, the court below refused to accept the property involved in the said document as comparable land, in view of the fact that the property involved in Ext.A8 document was transferred to provide access-cum-parking space for a hotel-cum-restaurant proposed to be constructed in that property. On the other hand, the court below took note of the fact that the petition schedule properties abut the Panchayat road on the north and important places like Maikavu and Kodencherry are situated at a distance of 1 Km. The fact that, a Government College is situated within 600 metres, an LP School at 400 metres and a PWD road passes at a distance of 600 metres was taken into account. On consideration of the above factors and on comparison of the petition schedule properties with the property involved in Ext.A11 document, the court below fixed the land value at Rs.35,000/- per cent, as against Rs.10,000/- per cent fixed earlier. As substantial portion of the respondent's property was found affected due to the drawing of electric lines, 25% of the land value was fixed as compensation for the corridor and 1