The court has the discretion to determine the compensation for diminution in land value and the value of trees cut, based on the relevant factors, and is not bound by the government's guidelines.

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 respondent, consequent upon the drawing of 400 KV electric lines across her property by the Corporation. The essential facts are as under;

In order to facilitate drawing of lines for the smooth transmission of power, large number of trees were cut from the respondent's property.

The drawing of high tension lines rendered the land underneath and adjacent to the lines useless, resulting in diminution of the value of the property. In spite of the huge loss suffered, a meagre amount was paid to the respondent as compensation. Hence, the original petition was filed, seeking enhanced compensation towards the value of trees cut and diminution in land value.

2.The court below allowed the claim for enhanced compensation for the value of trees cut by awarding 25% of the compensation already granted by the Corporation. Thus, the claimant was found entitled to Rs.30,410/- towards the value of trees cut.

3.For deciding the claim for enhanced compensation towards diminution in land value, the court below referred to Exts.C1 and C1(a) commissioner's report and plan, and took note of the fact that the petition schedule property has proper road frontage. Based on the said factors, the court below fixed the land value of the respondent's property at Rs.40,000/- per cent. Having found the petition schedule property to be lying contiguously with that of the property involved in O.P.(Ele)No.102/2011, the court below considered both petitions together. Thus, the total affected area was held to be 50 cents, out of which 7.14 cents was occupied by a tower. The court below granted 100% of the land value as compensation towards the area covered by the tower and 50% of the land value for the affected area admeasuring 42.86 cents. Accordingly, the respondent was found entitled to compensation of Rs.11,42,800/- towards diminution in land value in O.P.(Ele) Nos.28 and 102 of 2011. This civil revision petition is filed, contending the enhancement ordered is far in excess of the actual damage sustained.

4.Heard Adv.E.M.Murugan for the Corporation and Adv.O.D.Sivadas for the respondent.

5.Learned Counsel for the petitioner Corporation contended that, compensation towards the value of trees cut and diminution in land value granted is exorbitant and there is no rationale in granting 9% interest on the amount.

The court below fixed the land value without considering that there is no prohibition on the landowner from conducting agricultural activities and putting up small structures in his property.

6.Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the well considered order of the court below warrants no interference.

7.On careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the court below had referred to the Commissioner's report and the detailed revised valuation statement for awarding 25% of the compensation already granted as additional compensation towards the value of trees cut. The enhancement of compensation was thus based on the materials on record and cannot therefore be faulted.

8.As far as the diminution in land value is concerned, the factors to be taken into consideration, as laid down in KSEB v. Livisha [ (2007) 6 SCC 792 ], are as under;

“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 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.”

On careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the compensation was enhanced after taking all t